ISSN 0989-5671

2023
N° 1 (mars)

NOTES BRÈVES

1) Bibliographie de Pierre Villard (26 juillet 1958 – 25 janvier 2023) — Une nécrologie de notre
collègue et ami Pierre Villard, professeur à l’Université de Clermont-Auvergne, sera publiée dans le
prochain numéro de la Revue d’Assyriologie. NABU, dont il a été secrétaire de rédaction à partir de 1990,
puis membre du comité de rédaction de 1998 à 2000, s’associe à cet hommage en publiant ici sa
bibliographie.

Pierre Villard en 1998 (Photo: C. Michel)

Thèse (inédite) : L’esprit de cour et le style des courtisans dans l’Assyrie des Sargonides, 13/06/1986.
P. Garelli directeur.
HDR (inédite) : Mari et Ninive, 29/01/2000. D. Charpin garant.
Ouvrages co-édités
1997 B. Lion, C. Michel et P. Villard (éd.), Enfance et éducation dans le Proche-Orient ancien, Ktèma.
Civilisations de l’Orient, de la Grèce et de Rome antiques 22, p. 3-170.
2006 L. Battini et P. Villard (éd.), Médecine et médecins au Proche-Orient ancien. Actes du Colloque international
organisé à Lyon les 8 et 9 novembre 2002, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, BAR
International Series 1528, Oxford : John and Erica Hedges.

– 1 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

Monographies
1984 G. Bardet, F. Joannès, B. Lafont, D. Soubeyran & P. Villard, Archives administratives de Mari 1, Archives
royales de Mari 23, Paris : ERC, chapitre V, p. 453-585.
2002 « Les administrateurs de l’époque de Yasmah-Addu », dans J.-M. Durand et D. Charpin (éd.), Mari, Ebla et
les Hourrites, dix ans de travaux, deuxième partie. Actes du colloque international (Paris, mai
1993), Amurru 2, Paris : ERC, p. 9-140.

Articles
1986 « Un roi de Mari à Ugarit », Ugarit Forschungen 18, p. 387-412.
1987 « Un conflit d’autorité concernant les eaux du Balih », M.A.R.I. 5, Paris : ERC, p. 591-596.
« Deux textes concernant les libérations de personnel à Mari », M.A.R.I. 5, Paris : ERC, p. 631-634.
1988 « Les structures du récit et les relations entre texte et image dans les bas-reliefs néo-Assyriens », Word &
Image. A Journal of Verbal/Visual Enquiry 4, p. 422-429.
1990 « Documents pour l’histoire du royaume de Haute-Mésopotamie III », M.A.R.I. 6, Paris : ERC, p. 559-584.
« Copies cunéiformes d’ARMT XXIII-5 », M.A.R.I. 6, Paris : ERC, p. 584-618.
1991 « Un rapport astrologique du Louvre », dans D. Charpin et F. Joannès (éd.), Marchands, diplomates et
empereurs. Études sur la civilisation mésopotamienne offertes à Paul Garelli, Paris : ERC, p. 126-
136.
1992 « Le déplacement des trésors royaux, d’après les archives royales de Mari », dans D. Charpin et F. Joannès
(éd.), La circulation des biens, des personnes et des idées dans le Proche-Orient ancien, Actes de
la XXXIIIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Paris, 8-10 juillet 1991), Paris : ERC, p. 195-
205.
« Parade militaire dans les jardins de Babylone », dans J.-M. Durand (éd.), Recueil d’études en l’honneur de
Michel Fleury, Florilegium Marianum [I]. Mémoire de N.A.B.U. 1, Paris : SEPOA, p. 137- 151.
1993 « La place des années de ‘Kahat’ et d’‘Adad d’Alep’ dans la chronologie du règne de Zimri-lim », M.A.R.I.
7, Paris : ERC, p. 315-328.
1994 « Nomination d’un scheich », dans D. Charpin et J.-M. Durand (éd.), Recueil d’études à la mémoire de
Maurice Birot. Florilegium Marianum II. Mémoires de N.A.B.U. 3, Paris : SEPOA, p. 291-297.
1995 « Shamshi-Adad and Sons: Rise and Fall of Upper Mesopotamian Empire », dans J. Sasson (éd.),
Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, vol. II, New-York : Charles Scribner’s Sons, p. 873-883.
« Les derniers rapports des devins néo-assyriens », Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 89, p. 97-
107.
« La représentation du désert dans les inscriptions des rois néo-assyriens », Travaux historiques n°38-39. Le
désert : une histoire, des images, p. 17-24.
1997 « La réception des conventions jurées dans les messages des serviteurs d’Assarhaddon », dans S. Lafont
(éd.), Jurer et maudire : pratiques politiques et usages juridiques du serment dans le Proche-Orient
ancien, Méditerranées 10-11, p. 147-161.
« La représentation des paysages de montagne à l’époque néo-assyrienne », Des Sumériens aux Romains
d’Orient. La perception géographique du monde, Antiquités Sémitiques II, Paris : Maisonneuve, p.
41-58.
« L’éducation d’Assurbanipal », Ktèma. Civilisations de l’Orient, de la Grèce et de Rome antiques 22,
p. 135-149.
1998 « Allusions littéraires et jeux de lettrés dans les rapports des devins d’époque néo-assyrienne », dans
J. Prosecky (éd.), Intellectual Life of the Ancient Near East. Papers Presented at the 43rd Rencontre
Assyriologique Internationale, Prague, July 1-5, 1996, Prague : Academy of Sciences of the Czech
Republic, Oriental Institute, p. 427-437.
1999 « Les limites du monde connu à l’époque néo-assyrienne », dans L. Milano, S. de Martino, F.M. Fales et
G.B. Lanfranchi (éd.), Landscapes, Territories, Frontiers and Horizons in the Ancient Near East.
Papers Presented to the XLIV Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Venezia, 7-11 July, 1997,
Volume II, Geography and Cultural Landscapes, HANEM 3/2, Padova : Sargon, p. 73-81.
avec L. Battini, « Assyriens et Grecs », L’image grecque et l’empire ottoman, Méditerranées 20, p. 27-41.
2000 « Les textes judiciaires néo-assyriens », dans F. Joannès (éd.), Rendre la justice en Mésopotamie, Saint-Denis :
Presses Universitaires de Vincennes, p. 171-200.
« Le chien dans la documentation néo-assyrienne », dans D. Parayre (éd.), Les animaux et les hommes dans
le monde syro-mésopotamien aux époques historiques, Topoi, Supplément 2, Lyon, p. 235-249.
« Les séjours d’Abraham : Harrân », dans A. Lemaire (éd.), Les routes du Proche-Orient. Des séjours
d’Abraham aux caravanes de l’encens, Paris : Desclée de Brouwer et Le Monde de la Bible, p. 41-
50.
2001 « Les prophéties à l’époque néo-assyrienne », dans A. Lemaire (éd.), Prophètes et rois. Bible et Proche-
Orient, Paris : Le Cerf, p. 55-84.

– 2 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

« La parole du roi dans la mythologie et la littérature mésopotamiennes », Cadernos de Filosofia 9-10, p. 43-
70.
2003 « Bien-être du corps et de l’esprit d’après la correspondance des exorcistes, médecins et lamentateurs des
Sargonides », Estudos Orientais VIII, p. 33-60.
2004 « La fonction de juge dans l’empire néo-assyrien », La fonction de juger. Egypte ancienne et Mésopotamie.
Droit et Cultures 47, p. 171-184.
2006 « Le porc dans les sources néo-assyriennes », dans B. Lion et C. Michel (éd.), De la domestication au tabou :
le cas des suidés dans le Proche-Orient ancien, Travaux de la Maison René-Ginouvès 1, Paris : De
Boccard, p. 205-214.
« Les guérisseurs à la cour néo-assyrienne », dans L. Battini et P. Villard (éd.), Médecine et médecins au
Proche-Orient ancien. Actes du Colloque international organisé à Lyon les 8 et 9 novembre 2002,
Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, BAR International Series 1528, Oxford : John and Erica
Hedges, p. 139-160.
« Les descriptions des maisons néo-assyriennes », dans P. Butterlin, M. Lebeau, J.-Y. Monchambert,
J. L. Montero Fenollós et B. Muller (éd.), Les espaces syro-mésopotamiens. Dimensions de
l’expérience humaine au Proche-Orient ancien. Volume d’hommage offert à Jean-Claude
Margueron, Subartu 17, Turnhout : Brepols, p. 521-528.
« Acheminement et réception de la correspondance royale dans l’empire néo-assyrien », dans L. Capdetrey
et J. Nelis-Clément (éd.), La circulation de l’information dans les États antiques, Bordeaux :
Ausonius éditions, p. 17-33.
2007 « L’(an)durāru à l’époque néo-assyrienne », Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 101, p. 107-124.
« Quelques notes sur le clergé d’Assur à la fin de l’époque néo-assyrienne », Akh Purratim – Les rives de
l’Euphrate ». Mémoires d’archéologie et d’histoire régionales interdisciplinaires 2, p. 321-334.
2008 « L’empire néo-assyrien », dans F. Hurlet (éd.), Les empires : Antiquité et Moyen Âge : analyse comparée,
Rennes : Presses universitaires de Rennes, p. 15-31.
« Les cérémonies triomphales en Assyrie », dans P. Abrahami et L. Battini (éd.), Les armées du Proche‐
Orient ancien (IIIe‐Ier mill. av. J.‐C.), BAR International Series 1855, Oxford : John and Erica
Hedges, p. 257-270.
« Les lettres du temple d’Ashur », dans L. Pantalacci (éd.), La lettre d’archive, Topoi, Supplément 9, Lyon,
p. 179-191.
2009 « Les femmes et l’écrit à l’époque néo-assyrienne », dans F. Briquel-Chatonnet, S. Farès, B. Lion et
C. Michel (éd.), Femmes, cultures et sociétés dans les civilisations méditerranéennes et proche-
orientales de l’Antiquité, Topoi, Supplément 10, Lyon, p. 305-319.
2010 « Les textiles néo-assyriens et leurs couleurs », dans C. Michel et M.-L. Nosch (éd.), Textile Terminologies
in the Ancient Near East and the Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millennia BC, Ancient
Textiles Series 8, Oxford & Oakville : Oxbow Books, p. 388-399.
« Les formulaires juridiques des textes néo-assyriens », dans S. Demare-Lafont et A. Lemaire (éd.), Trois
millénaires de formulaires juridiques : Actes de la Table ronde des 28-29 septembre 2006, Hautes
études orientales 48, Genève : Droz, p. 141-185.
2013 « Les commensaux des rois néo-assyriens », dans C. Grandjean, C. Hugoniot et B. Lion (éd.), Le banquet du
monarque dans le monde antique, Rennes & Tours : Presses Universitaires de Rennes et Presses
Universitaires François-Rabelais, p. 215-230.
2014 « La notion de famille royale à l’époque néo-assyrienne », dans L. Marti (éd.), La famille dans le Proche-
Orient ancien : réalités, symbolismes et image. Proceedings of the 55th Rencontre Assyriologique
Internationale, Paris, 6-9 July 2009, Winona Lake : Eisenbrauns, p. 515-523.
2015 « Les champs disciplinaires et la notion de maîtrise en Mésopotamie ancienne », dans C. Breniquet et
F. Colas-Rannou (dir.), Art, artiste, artisan. Essais pour une histoire de l’art diachronique et
pluridisciplinaire, Clermont-Ferrand : Presses universitaires Blaise Pascal, p. 45-54.
2016 « Quelques aspects du renseignement militaire dans l’empire néo-assyrien », dans P. Abrahami et C. Wolff
(éd.), Kakkēka rukusma (« Ceins tes armes ! »). 2e Rencontre d’Histoire militaire du Proche-Orient ancien
(Lyon, 17-18 octobre 2013), HiMA, Revue Internationale d’Histoire Militaire Ancienne 3, p. 87-97.
2017 « The Architect and the Emperor of Babylonia », Ash Sharq 1, p. 286-293.
2018 « Le clergé dans les sociétés mésopotamiennes », dans L. Coulon et P.-L. Gatier (éd.), Le clergé dans les
sociétés antiques : statut et recrutement, Paris : CNRS Éditions, p. 11-34.
2019 « L’Ezida de Kalhu et son clergé au VIIe siècle av. J.-C. d’après la documentation textuelle », dans
P. Abrahami et L. Battini (éd.), Ina dmarri u qan tuppi. Par la bêche et le stylet ! Cultures et sociétés
syro-mésopotamiennes. Mélanges offerts à Olivier Rouault, Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology 5,
Oxford : Archaeopress, p. 86-95.
« Uses of the Debt Note’s Pattern in the Neo-Assyrian Documentation », dans S. Demare-Lafont (éd.), Debt
in Ancient Mediterranean Societies: A Documentary Approach. Legal Documents in Ancient

– 3 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

Societies VII, Paris, August 27-29, 2015, Hautes Etudes Orientales. Moyen et Proche-Orient 56,
Genève : Droz, p. 61-86.
2020 « The Babylonian Chronicles of Ancient Times in the Context of the Neo-Assyrian Empire », Ash Sharq 4,
p. 277-293.
2021 « Travail et dettes à l’époque néo-assyrienne », dans S. Maillot et J. Zurbach (éd.), Statuts personnels et main
d’œuvre en Méditerranée hellénistique, Clermont-Ferrand : Presses universitaires Blaise Pascal,
p. 211-224.
2022 « Degrees of Jurisdiction and the Notion of Appeal in the Neo-Assyrian Period », Ash Sharq 6/2, p. 111-124.
« Les orfèvres dans les sources écrites néo-assyriennes », dans L. Battini (éd.), Image and Identity in the
Ancient Near East: Papers in Memoriam Pierre Amiet, Oxford : Archaeopress, p. 115-124.
« La mémoire de l’époque médio-assyrienne à l’époque néo-assyrienne », dans L. Marti, O. Rouault et A.
Tenu (dir.), Études Mésopotamiennes - Mesopotamian Studies 2, Oxford : Archaeopress, p. 165-
174.
2023 « Le ‘pays d’Aššur’ et la notion d’ ‘assyrianité’ à l’époque néo-assyrienne », dans Ph. Clancier et J. Monerie
(éd.), L'empreinte des empires au Proche-Orient ancien. Volume d'hommage offert à Francis
Joannès, Oxford, Études mesopotamiennes – Mesopotamian Studies 3, Oxford : Archaeopress,
p. 111-126.
« Assurbanipal, les Ištar et compagnie : un prince à l'école des divinités », dans M. Béranger, F. Nebiolo et
N. Ziegler (éd.), Dieux, rois et capitales dans le Proche-Orient ancien. Compte rendu de la LXVe
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Paris, 8-12 juillet 2019), Publications de l'Institut du
Proche-Orient ancien du Collège de France 5, Leuven, Paris, Bristol : Peeters, p. 1137-1152.
« The place of deportation of the Babylonian divine statues », Ash Sharq 7/1, p. 12-14.
sous presse « Neo-Assyrian Judicial Decisions », dans S. Démare-Lafont et D. Fleming (éd.), Judicial
Decisions in Mesopotamia, Writings from the Ancient World 43, Atlanta: SBL Press.

Notes brèves
1989 « ARMT XXVI/2 n° 286 : une nouvelle attestation de l’alûm à Mari », NABU 1989/92.
1990 « A.2094 : Le rituel-hiyi/ârum devant le dieu de l’orage », NABU 1990/32.
1993 « La mort de Sumu-epuh et la révolte des Turukkéens », NABU 1993/119.
« Une nouvelle attestation d’Ekallâtum de l’Euphrate ? », NABU 1993/120.
1994 « La disgrâce d’Urad-Gula et la datation de LAS 122 et 125 », NABU 1994/75.
1996 « L’archivage public des contrats de vente d’immeubles d’après les Lois assyriennes », NABU 1996/61.
1997 « Le roi, Jupiter et l’astrologue », NABU 1997/115.
1998 « Kiṣir-Aššur et la bibliothèque de Ninive », NABU 1998/16.
« Akkulānu, astrologue, prêtre et juge », NABU 1998/52.
2001 avec L. Battini, « La porte de la tour du peuple à Dūr-Šarru-kin », NABU 2001/9.
2002 « SAA XIII 166 : un brouillon de lettre retrouvé à Ninive ? », NABU 2002/28.
2003 avec L. Battini, « Une scène de l’Odyssée revue à la lumière des données proche-orientales », Orient Express,
p. 45.

Comptes rendus
1990 Kh. Nashef, Rekonstruktion der Reiserouten zur Zeit der altassyrischen Handelsniederlassungen,
Wiesbaden, 1987, Bibliotheca Orientalis 47, p. 675-684.
1996 M. Anbar, Les tribus amurrites de Mari, OBO 108, Freiburg-Göttingen, 1991, Revue d’assyriologie et
d’archéologie orientale 90, p. 91-93.
1997 M. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, WAW 6, Atlanta, 1995, Revue historique de
droit français et étranger 75, p. 275-297.
2002 M. Fales, L’impero assiro. Storia e amministrazione, Rome-Bari, 2001, Annales. Histoire, Sciences sociales
57, p. 675-677.
R. Mattila, The King’s Magnates. A Study of the Highest Officials of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, SAAS XI,
Helsinki, 2000, Annales. Histoire, Sciences sociales 57, p. 677-680.
S. C. Melville, The Role of Naqia/Zakutu in Sargonid Politic, Helsinki, SAAS IX, 1999, Annales. Histoire,
Sciences sociales 57, p. 680-683.
2004 R. Mattila, The King’s Magnates. A Study of the Highest Officials of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, SAAS XI,
Helsinki, 2000, Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 98, p. 190-191.
J. Hämmen-Anttila, A Sketch of Neo-Assyrian Grammar, SAAS XIII, Helsinki, 2000, Revue d’Assyriologie
et d’archéologie orientale 98, p. 191.
J. Eidem et J. Læssøe, The Shemshāra Archives, Vol 1 The Letter, Historisk-filosofiske Skrifter 23,
Copenhague, 2001, Syria 81, p. 278-281.

– 4 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

2010 N. P. Heessel, Divinatorische Texte I, Terrestriche, teratologische, physiognomische und oneiromantische

Omina. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur literarischen Inhalts 1, WVDOG 116, Wiesbaden, 2007, Syria
87, p. 390-391.
2019 J. Novotny et J. Jeffers, The Royal Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal (668-631 BC), Aššur-etel-ilāni (630-627
BC), and Sîn-šarra-iškun (626-612 BC), The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo Assyrian Period 5/1,
University Park, 2018, Syria 96 <https://journals.openedition.org/syria/9022?lang=ar>

Notices
1998 Dans J. Servier, Dictionnaire critique de l’ésotérisme, Paris : P.U.F : « Le savoir d’Assurbanipal », p. 143-
145 ; « La concordance. Les mises en équivalence terre-ciel », p. 328-332 ; « Que l’initié le dise à
l’initié », p. 1160-1162.
2001 Dans F. Joannès (dir.), assisté de C. Michel, Dictionnaire de la civilisation mésopotamienne, Paris : Robert
Lafont : « Adê », p. 7-8 ; « Akitu », p. 20-22 ; « Annales royales », p. 53-55 ; « Anzû », p. 58-59 ;
« Arabie », p. 61-63 ; « Arbèles », p. 68-69 ; « Armement », p. 75-78 ; « Assarhaddon », p. 82-84 ;
« Assyrie », p. 88-90 ; « Astrologie », p. 91-93 ; « Aššur (dieu) », p. 98-99 ; « Aššurbanipal », p.
102-105 ; « Aššurnaṣirpal II », p. 105-107 ; « Bibliothèques », p. 125-128 ; « Cavalerie », p. 167-
168 ; « Charrerie », p. 177-179 ; « Colophons », p. 192-193 ; « Déportations », p. 227-230 ;
« Divination et présages », p. 239-242 ; « Ea », p. 253-254 ; « Éponyme », p. 292-294 ;
« Espionnage », p. 310-311 ; « Esprit de cour », p. 311-314 » ; « Exorcismes », p. 325-328 ;
« Génies protecteurs », p. 347-349 ; « Grecs et monde égéen », p. 351-352 ; « Harrân », p. 367-
369 ; « Interprète », p. 414-415 ; « Juste souffrant », p. 435-436 ; « Lamentateur », p. 461-462 ;
« Liban (montagne) », p. 471-472 » ; « Lydie », p. 481-482 ; « Magie », p. 485-487 ;
« Mésopotamie », p. 515-526 ; « Namburbû », p. 556-557 ; « Néo-assyrien », p. 563-564 ; « Néo-
assyriens (rois) », p. 264-266 ; « Ninurta », p. 577-578 ; « Nisibe », p. 583-584 ; « Phrygie », p.
650-652 ; « Roi-substitut », p. 733-735 ; « Sargon II », p. 756-758 ; « Sargonides », p. 758-761 ;
« Sennacherib », p. 767-769 ; « Šamšî-ilu », p. 817-818 ; « Tiglath-Phalasar III », p. 859-851 ;
« Til-Barsip », p. 852-854 ; « Tukultî-Ninurta I », p. 862-864 ; « Turtânu », p. 864-865.
avec Laura Battini : « Aššur (ville) », p. 99-102 ; « Dûr-Šarrukîn », p. 248-251 ; « Kalhu », p. 437-440 ;
« Porte », p. 671-674.
avec Laura Battini et Luc Bachelot : « Ninive », p. 574-577.
2013 Dans R.S. Bagnall, K. Brodersen, C.B. Champion, A. Erskine et S.R. Huebner (éd.), The Encyclopedia of
Ancient History, Hoboken, New-Jersey : Wiley-Blackwell : « Adû » (vol. I, p. 108-109),
« Anunnaki and Igigi » (II, p. 509), « Ekallatum » (V, p. 2345), « Shamshi-Adad and sons » (XI,
p. 6200-6201), « Shubat-Enlil » (XI, p. 6228-6229).
1998-2003 Contributions aux volumes I/1, I/2, II/1, III/1 et III/2 de The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian
Empire, Helsinki (environ 130 entrées).

Pour un public élargi

1984 « Une déportation à Mari et le sort des prisonniers de guerre », Eblouissante richesse de Mari sur l’Euphrate.
Les dossiers Histoire et archéologie n°80, p. 84.
1991 « Le sac de Suse », La guerre au Proche-Orient dans l’antiquité. Dossiers d’Archéologie n°160, p. 63.
« L’armée néo-assyrienne », La guerre au Proche-Orient dans l’antiquité. Dossiers d’Archéologie n°160,
p. 42-47.
1992 « Texte et image dans les bas-reliefs », Fastes des palais assyriens au Nouvel-Empire. Dossiers
d’Archéologie n°171, p. 32-37.
« Les courtisans », Fastes des palais assyriens au Nouvel-Empire. Dossiers d’Archéologie n°171, p. 44-49.
1994 « Astrologie et politique à la cour de Ninive », Astrologie en Mésopotamie. Dossiers d’Archéologie n°191,
p. 18-25.
« Le “deuxième bureau” assyrien », Khorsabad, capitale de Sargon II. Dossiers d’Archéologie hors-série
n°4, p. 28-31.
1995 « Les fléaux divins », Le Déluge. Dossiers d’Archéologie n°204, p. 36-41.
2009 « Les maisons mésopotamiennes vues par les scribes », Maisons urbaines au Proche-Orient ancien. Dossiers
d’Archéologie n°332, p. 34-37.
« Les cultes domestiques », Maisons urbaines au Proche-Orient ancien. Dossiers d’Archéologie n°332,
p. 70-72.

Publications en ligne sur le carnet Sociétés humaines du Proche-Orient ancien :

« Du technicien au conseiller royal : à propos de l’évolution sémantique du terme ummânu », dans Sociétés
humaines du Proche-Orient ancien, 08/01/2018, https://ane.hypotheses.org/161.
« L’éducation littéraire des princesses mésopotamiennes », dans Sociétés humaines du Proche-Orient ancien,
16/05/2020, https://ane.hypotheses.org/8641.

– 5 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

« Repas quotidiens et repas de fêtes en Mésopotamie (1) », dans Sociétés humaines du Proche-Orient ancien,
28/12/2021, https://ane.hypotheses.org/9703.
« Repas quotidiens et repas de fêtes en Mésopotamie (2) », dans Sociétés humaines du Proche-Orient ancien,
25/02/2022, https://ane.hypotheses.org/9860.
Philippe ABRAHAMI <philippe.abrahami@univ-lille.fr>
Catherine BRENIQUET <catherine.breniquet@uca.fr>
Brigitte LION <brigitte.lion@univ-paris1.fr>
Cécile MICHEL <cecile.michel@cnrs.fr>
Virginie MULLER <virginie.muller@mom.fr>

2) ‘Indirect’ Proto-Euphratic (PE) – Sumerian bilingual texts?* — In NABU 2014/58 I had raised the
assumption that there were no Proto-Euphratic – Sumerian bilingual texts; one would have to be satisfied
with ‘indirect’ bilingual texts. By an ‘indirect’ bilingual text I understand texts that come from different
times or from different sources, but which document comparable processes. In 2021, the Uruk Vase and
Nik 28 were cited as an example of a “pictorial” indirect bilingual text (Uruk III/ED; cf. also Nik 270,
7:1)1). Meanwhile, I do believe that there are a few candidates for “real” indirect bilingual texts
(Uruk III/ED). The term refers only to entire texts (or their form), not, however, to glosses or word
equations, which might simply represent a form of expression appropriate to a new age2). As already
indicated, the form of the Sumerian administrative texts often differs so much from that of the PE that
direct comparisons are hardly possible3). A good example of this is the flock texts discussed by GREEN4),
and the ration lists is another. Other text forms do not find a direct continuation in the ED period either,
such as the “texts with calculations” characteristic of the writing phase Uruk III (op. cit. [note 1], IV–6) or
the texts classified as “offerings for Uruk?” (~ IV–8).
Somewhat unfavourable for an investigation is the fact that apart from the Ur texts published by
BURROWS in UET 2, only a few other administrative texts from the ED I–II period are known (according
to the CDLI’s search engine, the UET 2 texts account for about 80 % of all texts). In almost all cases, one
has to rely on comparisons of the PE texts with texts from the ED III period. This does not mean, however,
that the “spoken form” did not yet exist in the ED I–II period; it was obviously just not yet possible (or not
seen as necessary) to “implement it graphically”. One was still oriented towards the form of the (PE)
predecessor texts, but undoubtedly already wrote in another language, namely the Sumerian. The form is
still reminiscent of the PE “stamp script” (cf. texts such as UET 2, 186 and ~ 226; on ~ 259 cf. m1/212 and
Nik 15): the most important data (commodity, quantity, supplier/recipient, place, time, purpose) are – with
very few exceptions (a7/20274,139) – generally placed asyndetically one after the other (“stamped in”)5);
from the ED III writing phase onwards, complete sentences appear more frequently.
Some indirect bilingual texts will be listed below. Here, the focus is on the nuances of meaning of
the verbs used in the two languages (more precisely: the verbs denoted by one and the same sign; example:
‘BA’) as well as the (more frequently occurring) verbs that are at a time not used in one language but are
used in the other, respectively.
There are mainly three verbs in the PE administrative texts: BA, GI and GU₇ (see NABU 2018/93
and op. cit. [note 1], IV–11). The verb GI no longer exists from the ED I–II period onwards. If the “BA–
GI–GU₇ system” had been Sumerian, there would probably have been no reason to abandon it – even if the
economic system had changed. In the ED III period, one also encounters only a limited number of
(frequently used) verbs in the subscripts of administrative texts6), especially ba (BA; to allot), gu₇ (GU₇; to
eat), gar (GAR), šúm (SUM); am₆ (AN, pl. me [ME]; enclitic copula), de₆ (DU), gíd (BU; to survey; cf.
op. cit. [note 1], V–1–d), gub (DU), šu...gi₄ (ŠU and GI₄ do not form a compound verb in PE texts; ŠU
alone does not seem to be a verb in PE documents [a text like c31/43 could speak against this assumption],
for GI₄ see below), šu...teg₄ (ti) (PE: ŠU and TI do not occur together; TI alone does not seem to be a verb).
A selection of infrequent verbs (not all of them appear in subscripts): ág, ak, ba-al (to dig), bal(a) (to
transfer), dab₅, dar (to split), dé (to pour), dù (to build), dug₄, è (to go out), gi₄ (to turn), gál (to be),
gi/eš...tag, ḫal (written ḫa-la; to divide)7), íl, kaš₄, kéš (kešed), kud (to cut; already has the same meaning
in PE texts; here TAR corresponds to a share of 10 % [cf. CDLI, m4/27, translation of TAR as “the cut

– 6 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

(is)”]), lá (to weigh, ~ out), pad, ri (various meanings; cf. Nik 289, 3:4), sá (to be equal to), sa₁₀ (ŠÁM; cf.
NABU 2022/2), sar (to write), si (to fill), si...sá, sur (cf. Nik 46, 10:5 with comment; to press [beer; see
SELZ 1993, no. 47, 2:2; cf. (?) on this a7/21554, KAŠ SUR]), šid, šu...taka₄, tak₄ (taka₄), tìl (to live), tuku,
tuš, úš (to die), zi (zi-ir). Apart from BA and GU₇, none of the signs/verbs can be proven with certainty to
have been used as a verb in PE. For some of the signs (KA [dug₄], SAR, SI, ŠID [= SANGA], ŠU, TI) this
evidence is not always unambiguous; others did not even exist in the Uruk III writing phase (ÁG [ág],
U₄.DU [è], ÍL, KAŠ₄, RI). In detail:
1) PE ‘BA’ and its (most common) ED equivalents
In PE texts, BA generally means “in front of one’s eyes”8); in Sumerian, the activities expressed
by BA in PE texts are expressed by different verbs depending on the economic process: GAR, SUM, BA
and some others.
a) GAR usually stands for regular deliveries (Nik 59: barley for harnessed teams, sheep, pigs; for brewing;
for the statue) or necessary deliveries at longer intervals (fodder for cattle when ploughing up [Nik 69], seed grain [Nik
76]; ...). Rations for humans do not belong to this category9). As the PE texts do not normally bear a date (but cf. NABU
2018/54), it is not so easy to find a parallel text. Text m4/1 records individual deliveries for eight years; however, the
process has (necessarily) already been completed (verb GU₇; see below, point 2)). A good candidate is m1/97, no
matter whether “[n] SU GIBIL” means the nth month, the nth year or the nth delivery (NABU 2018/54). The verb written
here is ‘BA’10). Since texts such as Nik 59 or ~ 60 (ED; verb: GAR) and m1/97 or m3/52 (Uruk III; verb: BA) describe
the same economic process in different periods (ED and Uruk III), thus agreeing mutatis mutandis on the form, they
may well be considered indirect bilingual texts11). They do not correspond on the point that decisively determines the
economic process – the verb12). There is no evidence for interpreting GAR in PE texts as “delivery”; in view of the
large number of (“negative”) attestations (371), the subscript of MS 4561 (n LAGAB GAR) does not come into
question for this either.
b) SUM occurs in “unscheduled” (non-regular) disbursements (Nik 85, ~ 92, ~267 and many others; PE:
m1/104, m1/177, m4/48, m4/49; possibly also m1/44 because of the different quantities of emmer and barley; verb
here in all cases: ‘BA’). Often the intended purpose is given: barley for buying wool (Nik 85), for milling (?) (Nik 92),
for brewing (Nik 94; cf. m3/52 [see above]13), verb: ‘BA’; intended purpose: KU.ŠIM [beer bread?]; cf. also c1/156
[malt (for brewing)]; verb: ‘BA’). The disbursements are of course not limited to barley; for an overview see SELZ
1989, p. 41, I–J. In none of the texts found via the CDLI search engine is there any indication that SUM could have
been used as a verb in PE; in a3/PLANT the sign SUM, which is the graphic representation of a plant (onion??), appears
as a kind of determinative. As texts such as Nik 92 and m4/48 (larger grain deliveries) describe a comparable situation,
it is presumably justified to speak of indirect bilingual texts (ED and Uruk III) here as well.
c) The verb BA is adopted by the Sumerians (as a sign), but only occurs in what they regarded in the PE
language (among several meanings) as the “standard meaning”, namely “to give as a ration” (Nik 1: še-ba [noun] ... e-
ne-ba [verb])14). Furthermore, it is used in the sense of “to give as a gift” (Nik 218). Compared to its use in the PE
language, BA thus has a very limited lexical field of meaning in Sumerian. In PE, BA generally only appears in the
(intermediate) subscript: m1/13, c1/168 and c1/178. The ration lists typical of the ED III period are practically non-
existent in the Uruk III period and apparently just as rare in the ED I–II period (ATFU, no. 61 [a “messenger text”?]
can serve as an example here).
It cannot be assumed that a language changes within a relatively short time span (writing phase
Uruk III to ED I) in such a way that a basic verb like BA “splits” into (at least) 3 new verbs (BA, GAR and
SUM). Once a Proto-Euphratian used signs such as BA and GI figuratively as verbs (they will not have
been exactly homonyms to the respective nouns represented graphically), he could have used further signs
for verbs if necessary. A Sumerian, on the other hand, will have used “always” GAR for “regular delivery”
(he could also have written it). The moment he began to write his own language without being influenced
by the handed-down form (as was still the case in the ED I–II period) – that is, in the ED III period – he
wrote down his language as he spoke it. The texts from the writing phase Uruk III are written in another
language in which the differentiation of BA was not necessary and common.
2) PE ‘GU₇’ and its equivalents
In contrast to BA, which describes (conducted) deliveries/disbursements/allocations for an activity
to be carried out (“to eat“ [rations], “to process” [barley/malt to beer], ...), GU₇ denotes in PE (in terms of
book-keeping) a “completed” process (“it is [already] eaten, debited, ...”). In the ED period GU₇ denotes
on the one hand the verb “to eat” (Nik 93, 3:1; obviously not attested in this sense in the PE texts [in c1/168
rev. to be understood as “debited <earlier>” rather than as “drunk (said of beer)”]). In this meaning it has

– 7 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

nothing to do with the BA–GI–GU₇ group. On the other hand, GU₇ (as in PE) denotes the consumption
(Nik 148, 5:2; ~ 151, 3:1). GAR, SUM, BA ... describe an “active” handing over (a “redistribution of
goods” by a person, independent of GU₇), whereas GU₇ is a “passive” handing over (i.e. goods are debited
from an “account”). New expressions in the ED period are “to put on a debt account” (Nik 220, 4:2-3) and
“to debit from a Sammeltafel” (Nik 163, 4:4-5).
Notes
* Abbreviations as in NABU 2022/2 (please, pay special attention to the abbreviations “a, c, mM/NN” for
“ATU, CUSAS, MSVO, vol. M/text no. NN”). – SELZ, G. J., 1989, Altsumerische Verwaltungstexte aus Lagaš, Teil 1,
FAOS 15, 1; id., 1993, Altsumerische Verwaltungstexte aus Lagaš, Teil 2, FAOS 15,2 (two parts). – Other
abbreviations: MS – Tablet signature of the Schøyen Collection, Oslo; Nik – ‘Nikol'skij texts’, quoted from SELZ 1989;
(ED: Early Dynastic; PE: Proto-Euphratic [writing phases Uruk IV and III]).
1. GEHLKEN, E., 2021, Considerations on the Proto-Euphratic Language (PE), p. 78.
2. Cf. “Frau” in today’s German in place of “Weib” in the German of a good 100 years ago, “Baby” (a foreign
word in German) in place of “Säugling”. The terms for “child”, ŠÀ TUR and šà-ḪI, on the other hand, occur in only
one language (PE and Sumerian respectively; cf. ENGLUND, OBO 160/1, note 406; Nik 18, 8:7 as well as SELZ 1993,
p. 198, 9:13; dissenting ePSD s.v. šag₄ dùg). Ad GÁN EN vs. GÁN níg-en-na cf. op. cit. (note 1), V–1–d.
3. Op. cit. (note 1), p. 24 bottom; p. 29; pp. 43–66; the use of EN in field texts is comparable (chapter V–1–
d), but that of EN in sacrificial texts is not (chapter V–1–e).
4. GREEN, M. W., 1980, “Animal Husbandry at Uruk in the Archaic Period”, JNES 39, pp. 1–35.
5. The subscripts may consist of many signs (c1/88); in part they therefore do not fit into one “line” (m1/13).
In c1/53, sense units are separated by lines. Larger subscripts also occasionally occur in the ED I–II period (UET 2, 18
or ~ 166).
6. Evaluation of SELZ 1989 and ~ 1993; the choice of these publications is arbitrary, but the type of texts
evaluated (approximately 440 documents) is presumably not completely unrepresentative.
7. A look at the distribution of evidence among the writing phases in the ePSD shows that the verb should
not yet have existed in the Uruk III writing phase because of the exclusively syllabic spellings in early times, cf. op.
cit. (note 1), “syllabic spellings” (index).
8. Regardless of whether it is taken as a nominal expression (“<being> in front of <someone’s> eyes”) or as
a verbal expression (“is/are in front of <someone’s> eyes”); more obvious with GU₇: “consumption” or “(someone)
has consumed”. Cf. “♥-lich willkommen!” and “Ich ♥ Paris!”.
9. As might be expected, there are also texts that do not fit into this simple scheme, such as Nik 200 and ~
217 (incorporating animals into a flock) or Nik 304 (supply of metal utensils and fabrics).
10. Another example: m1/99.
11. Nik 59, ~ 60: among other things barley for malt, beer bread and mash; regular delivery; m1/97 (regular
delivery) and m3/52: malt and groats <for brewing>.
12. This argument could not be made for the mere replacement of an older noun by a more contemporary
one (see note 2). It is immaterial that the ED texts contain additional information compared to the PE texts.
13. In the case of m3/52, it is not possible to say with certainty whether it is a regular or an unscheduled
delivery/disbursement.
14. More generally: “to allot” (Nik 131); cf. also Akkadian *nšr. One also encounters inadvertences by the
Sumerians: ‘BA’ in place of expected ‘GAR’ in Nik 57, 9:6; ‘GAR’ in place of ‘BA’: SELZ 1993, no. 10, 13:6. When
the quantities of BA allocations and GAR deliveries are added, the verb BA includes the GAR deliveries (SELZ 1993,
no. 1). It is striking that the expressions “še-ba” and “še-gar” exist for rations in the broader sense, but not the expression
“še-sum” for “unscheduled” disbursements. In contrast to Sumerian, BA in PE also stands for animal inspections (see
GREEN [note 4], p. 7; the interpretation given there differs somewhat). The text GREEN, no. 40 makes clear that BA
primarily has nothing to do with “allocate” (dead sheep [numeral N₀₂; cf. a5/p20] are, as the sum shows [39 = 33 + 2
+ 4], on a par with ‘BA’ sheep; dead animals are delivered by the shepherds; “allocations” and “deliveries” are not
added up [cf. NABU 2004/74, note 1; OBO 160/1, p. 175]). Also “n URU BA” (subscript of m1/243) is to be
understood in this sense; it refers to a listing (“inspection”) of cities.
Erlend GEHLKEN <gehlken@em.uni-frankfurt.de>
Universität Frankfurt/Main (GERMANY)

3) TM.75.G.5278 = ARET XII 848 + TM.75.G.1985+TM.75.G.10188 = ARET XIV 82, an Ebla

téléjoint — As suggested by its lexicon (TI-GI-NA) and personal names (Iš-ma₂-da-mu, Ḫa-ra-NI, Ir₃-kab-
ar), the small fragment TM.75.G.5278 = ARET XII 848 (findspot not available) is certainly to be joined to

– 8 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

the large Ebla administrative tablet TM.75.G.1985 + TM.75.G.10188 = ARET XIV 82 (findspot L.2769
North B). The fragment completes parts of the obverse (columns IV-VII) and reverse (columns VI-X) of
the tablet, in its upper edge.
Below I display the updated transliteration of the textual parts directly affected by this join (note
that I have not personally seen either TM.75.G.5278 = ARET XII 848 or TM.75.G.1985 + TM.75.G.10188
= ARET XIV 82):
1985
obv. IV:10 10 la₂-1 ma-na TAR <GIN₂.DILMUN> kug:babbar
1985
obv. IV:11 mu-DU
1985
obv. IV:12 Ig-na-da-mu
10188
obv. IV:13 ⸢ugula⸣ ⸢A-da⸣-aš₂ki
1985+5278
obv. V:1 ⸢TAR⸣ <GIN₂.DILMUN> kug:babbar
1985
obv. V:2 al₆-SU₃
1985
obv. V:14 5 ma-na la₂-5 <GIN₂.DILMUN> ⸢kug:babbar⸣
1985
obv. V:15 m[u-D]U
1985
obv. V:16 [En-na-NI]
10188
obv. V:17 [lu₂] Zi-ba-da
1985+5278
obv. VI:1 2 ⸢ma⸣-[na] 5 <GIN₂.DILMUN> kug:babbar
1985
obv. VI:2 al₆-SU₃
1985
obv. VI:17 1 li-im 4 mi-at 40 [G]U₂-BAR [še]
10188
obv. VI:18 a-de₃
1985+5278
obv. VII:1 3 ma-na kug:babbar
1985
obv. VII:2 mu-DU
1985
obv. VII:3 Il₂-gu₂-uš-ti
1985
obv. VII:4 2 ma-na kug:babbar
1985
obv. VII:5 al₆-SU₃
10188
rev. VI:18 1 ma-na la₂-1 <GIN₂.DILMUN> kug:babbar
10188
rev. VI:19 1 TI-GI-NA
10188+5278
rev. VI:20 1 gu-dul₃tug₂ 1 ib₂tug₂-2
5278
rev. VI:21 Ir₃-kab-ar
10188
rev. VII:12 2 ma-na <GIN₂.DILMUN> kug:babbar
10188
rev. VII:13 3 TI-GI-NA
10188
rev. VII:14 3 gu-dul₃tug₂ 3 ib₂tug₂-2
10188
rev. VII:15 A-ru₁₂-gu₂
10188
rev. VII:16 En-na-ba-al₆
10188
rev. VII:17 En-na-NI
5278
rev. VII:18 3 maškim
5278
rev. VII:19 Ḫa-ra-NI
10188
rev. VIII:1 i₃-teg₄
10188
rev. VIII:2 aš₂-ti
10188
rev. VIII:3 Mi-mi-a-du
10188
rev. VIII:4 Ar-miki
10188
rev. VIII:5 kaskal 4
10188
rev. VIII:16 1 ma-na [1]5 <GIN₂.DILMUN> [kug-si]g₁₇
5278
rev. VIII:17 1 TI-GI-NA
5278
rev. VIII:18 Iš-ma₂-da-mu
10188
rev. IX:15 1 ma-na ⸢15⸣ <GIN₂.DILMUN> kug-sig₁₇
rev. IX:16 [1 TI-GI-NA]
rev. IX:17 [...]

– 9 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

5278
rev. IX:18 [1 m]a-na 15 <GIN₂.DILMUN> kug-sig₁₇
5278
rev. IX:19 1 TI-GI-NA
10188
rev. X:1 Du-bu₃-ḫu-ma-lik
10188
rev. X:6 ⸢gu₂:an-še₃⸣ 15 ma-na TAR-8 <GIN₂.DILMUN> kug-sig₁₇
10188
rev. X:7 12 ⸢TI-GI-NA⸣
10188
rev. X:8 1 ma-na 5 <GIN₂.DILMUN> kug:babbar
10188
rev. X:9 13 TI-GI-NA
10188
rev. X:10 2 ma-na 55 <GIN₂.DILMUN> kug:babbar ḫaš-ḫaš
10188
rev. X:11 17 <GIN₂.DILMUN> kug-sig₁₇
10188
rev. X:12 Du-gu₂-ra-suki
10188
rev. X:13 nig₂-ki-za
10188
rev. X:14 en
10188
rev. X:15 in
10188
rev. X:16 ma-wa-tim
5278
rev. X:17 ([blan]k)
Marco BONECHI <marco.bonechi@cnr.it> https://cnr-it.academia.edu/MarcoBonechi
Istituto di Scienze del Patrimonio Culturale (ISPC), CNR, Rome (ITALY)

4) TM.75.G.5294 = ARET XII 858 + TM.75.G.2072 = ARET XIV 89, an Ebla téléjoint — The very
small fragment TM.75.G.5294 = ARET XII 858 (findspot not available) is certainly to be joined to the large
Ebla administrative tablet TM.75.G.2072 = ARET XIV 89 (findspot L.2769 North D). The fragment
completes parts of the obverse (columns VIII-X) and reverse (columns I-IV) of the tablet, in its lower edge.
Below I display the updated transliteration of the textual parts directly affected by this join (note
that I have not personally seen either TM.75.G.2072 = ARET XIV 89 or TM.75.G.5294 = ARET XII 858):
5294
obv. VIII:1 5 [m]a-na la₂-3 <GIN₂.DILMUN> kug-sig[₁₇]
2072
obv. VIII:2 <mu-DU> Kab-lu₅-ulki
2072
obv. VIII:11 1 ma-na 7 <GIN₂.DILMUN> kug-sig₁₇
2072
obv. VIII:12 1 LAGAB
2072
obv. VIII:13 1 tug₂ gun₃ 1 ib₂tug₂-3
2072
obv. VIII:14 nig₂-ba
2072
obv. VIII:15 en
2072
obv. VIII:16 Iš-⸢ma₂-da⸣-mu
5294
obv. IX:1 šu-mu-taka₄
5294
obv. IX:2 ⸢mi⸣-nu
2072
obv. IX:3 Ar-miki
2072
obv. IX:19 1 [ma-na] šanabiₓ(ŠA.PI)-8 <GIN₂.DILMUN> kug:babbar
5294
obv. X:1 mu-DU
2072+5294
obv. X:2 ⸢Sa⸣-[n]ab-zu-gum₂ki
2072
rev. I:14 12 gadatug₂ mu₄mu
2072
rev. I:15 3 gadatug₂ ⸢kir⸣-n[a-nu]
5294
rev. I:16 1 ib₂tug₂-2
2072
rev. II:1 1 šu-kešda gadatug₂
2072
rev. II:2 5 zu₂ dNamma
2072
rev. II:3 mu-DU
2072
rev. II:4 en
2072
rev. II:5 Gub-luki
2072
rev. II:6 12 gadatug₂ mu₂mu 2 gadatug₂ 2-šu
2072
rev. II:7 1 íbtug₂-4 1 šu-kešda gadatug₂

– 10 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

2072
rev. II:8 mu-DU
2072
rev. II:9 maškim-SU₃
2072
rev. II:10 in
2072
rev. II:11 ʾA₃-da-niki
2072
rev. II:12 lu₂ AN-AMA-ra
2072
rev. II:13 30 ma-na la₂-3 <GIN₂.DILMUN> gin₃-gin₃
2072
rev. II:14 70 ra-ʾa₃-tum
2072
rev. II:15 15 ba
2072
rev. II:16 2 nig₂-anše-aka
2072
rev. II:17 mu-DU
5294
rev. II:18 Iš-ma₂-NI
5294
rev. II:19 Ma-ri₂ki
2072
rev. III:1 u₅(MA₂.ḪU)
2072
rev. III:2 Du-du-luki
2072
rev. III:19 1 nig₂-la₂-gaba
2072+5294
rev. III:20 10 la₂-3 ma-na 50 <GIN₂.DILMUN> gin₃-gin₃
2072
rev. IV:1 mu-DU
2072
rev. IV:2 Šu-ga-du
2072
rev. IV:3 Ma-ri₂ki
2072
rev. IV:11 1 ʾa₃-da-umtug₂ 1 aktumtug₂ 1 ib₂tug₂ sa₆ gun₃
2072
rev. IV:12 1 ib₂-la₂ 1 si-ti-tum 1 giri₂ kun TAR <GIN₂.DILMUN> kug-sig₁₇
2072
rev. IV:13 1 giri₂ mar-tu kug-sig₁₇
2072
rev. IV:14 nig₂-ba
2072
rev. IV:15 en
2072
rev. IV:16 Ir-bi₂
2072
rev. IV:17 i₃-na-sum
2072
rev. IV:18 in ud
5294
rev. IV:19 [nig₂-m]u-sa₂
2072
rev. V:1 1 bur-KAK

The new pieces of information provided by this join, that make it possible to improve or confirm some
readings and translations in A. Archi, Annual Documents of Deliveries (mu-DU) to the Central
Administration (Archive L. 2769), ARET XIV, Wiesbaden, 2023, pp. 426-428, are:
obv. VIII:11 - IX:3: the Ebla man Yišmaʿ-damu sent from Armi to his king Yiṯġar-damu (who
presumably was at Ebla) a rich gift coming from Armi’s royal milieu; the construct šu-mu-taka₄ mi-nu GN
(cf. the reconstruction šu-mu-taka₄ [in] GN in ARET XIV, p. 426) with the preposition mīnum, “from”,
written explicitly, confirms that, as argued by Miguel Civil and Lorenzo Viganò in their 1990 articles in
Aula Orientalis 8, the Ebla occurrences of šu-mu-taka₄ imply that the delivery of goods involved persons
located in different and distant places (“in Sumerian, šu-tak₄ carries the specific connotation of sending
goods to a distance from the location in which the transaction had been originated”, in Viganò’s paraphrasis
of a suggestion by Civil);
rev. II:13 - III:2: even if acting as u₅ in Tuttul, Yišmaʿ-ʾil came from Mari and not from Tuttul, as
sometimes claimed (for instance, in ARET XIV, p. 431);
rev. IV:11 - V:1: the presence of the “bride-price” (nig₂-mu-sa₂) in the passage mentioning ʾErpiʾ
confirms the reconstruction suggested in ARET XIV, pp. 302 and 428.
Marco BONECHI <marco.bonechi@cnr.it>

5) L’image de culte de la déesse dTU dans le temple du dieu dKU-ra à Ébla — Dans les textes
administratifs d’Ébla le nom de la déesse-mère dTU est souvent associé à l’offrande d’un tissu gu-dùl-TÚG
noir ou blanc pour son image cultuelle (Pasquali 1996 ; 2005 : 165-168). Dans un cas cette cérémonie

– 11 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

d’habillage (mu₄mu) du simulacre divin de dTU entraîne aussi la sortie d’étoffes pour les prêtres pa₄:šeš du
dieu dKU-ra :
[1] ARET I 12 (4-6) : 1 gu-dùl-TÚG gi₆ / lú 10 na₄ siki / 2 bu-di 4 gín DILMUN kù:babbar / mu₄mu / dTU / 1 túg-NI.NI
/ Sar-du-du / pa₄:šeš / dKU-ra / 1 sal-TÚG 1 íb+III-TÚG gùn / A-du-ul / pa₄:šeš / dKU-ra / in ud / mu₄mu / dTU.

Bien évidemment ce détail ne peut que réaffirmer le lien étroit qui existe entre cette déesse et le dieu dKU-
ra (voir aussi Sallaberger 2018 : 12). C’est, en effet, dTU qui dans les rituels royaux de ARET XI 1 et 2
annonce, à l’aube, le renouvellement de dKU-ra, de sa parèdre dBa-ra-ma et du couple des souverains (pour
cet événement, voir Pasquali 2020 : 598 et sv).
En regardant attentivement parmi les documents administratifs, il y a des passages qui à ce jour
n’ont pas reçu l’attention qu’ils méritent, mais qui peuvent nous offrir des informations supplémentaires à
ce sujet. Il s’agit par exemple de l’extrait suivant qui provient d’un compte-rendu annuel de métaux :
[2] MEE 12 37 r. IV:39 – V:11 : 2 gín DILMUN kù:babbar / 1 ti₈-MUŠEN / x x […] / […] / […] [D]U₈? / […] MAŠ /
⸢ma⸣-⸢lik⸣-tum / dTU / [l]ú ⸢é⸣ / dKU-ra / šè / mu₄mu-mu₄mu.

Le contexte, malheureusement lacuneux, cite des cérémonies d’habillage (mu₄mu-mu₄mu) en référence à

d
TU qui est définie ici comme [l]ú ⸢é⸣ / dKU-ra, c’est-à-dire « celle du temple de dKU-ra ». Cela semble
indiquer que dans ce temple se trouvait abritée une statue de culte de la déesse. La lacune ne nous permet
pas de connaître l’identité du destinataire de l’objet en argent en forme d’aigle mentionné au début du
passage. En tout cas, rien ne nous autorise à penser qu’il devait s’agir de dKU-ra, comme en revanche le
veut Sallaberger (2018 : 131 e n. 70).
Le passage [2] nous aide maintenant à mieux comprendre un autre extrait administratif :
[3] ARET XX 19 (63) : 1 túg-NI.NI 1 íb+III-TÚG gùn / En-na-ì / pa₄:šeš / dKU-ra / šè / ma-lik-tum / mu₄mu / d[TU*] /
é / dKU-ra,

où des tissus sont assignés encore une fois à l’un des prêtres pa₄:šeš de dKU-ra par ordre de la reine lors de
l’habillage du simulacre de dTU dans le temple de dKU-ra. Après le déterminatif dingir, le nom de la déesse
a disparu sur la tablette, mais la restitution est certaine sur la base du passage parallèle [2].
On remarquera que dans ces contextes le terme sumérien an-dùl, qui régulièrement dans les
documents éblaïtes sert à indiquer la statue de culte des divinités, n’apparaît jamais. Le nom de la divinité
concernée suffit à évoquer sa représentation. On retrouve exactement le même phénomène dans les textes
grecs, où le terme technique qui indique la statue se cache derrière la personne divine représentée (voir par
exemple Bettinetti 2001 : 25-27). Pour ne citer qu’un exemple parmi les plus connus, dans le livre VIe de
l’Iliade, lors de l’offrande du péplum au simulacre d’Athéna dans son temple sis sur l’acropole de Troie,
le poète ne cite jamais la statue de culte, mais il se réfère directement au nom de la déesse (sur
l’identification entre la statue de culte d’Athéna et la déesse elle-même dans ce passage de l’Iliade, voir
Himmelmann-Wildschütz 1969 : 17).
Bibliographie
BETTINETTI, S., 2001, La statua di culto nella pratica rituale greca, Le Rane Studi 30, Bari.
HIMMELMANN-WILDSCHÜTZ, N., 1969, Über die bildende Kunst in der homerischen Gesellschaft, Mainz.
PASQUALI, J., 1996, La « vestizione » della statua della dea dTU ad Ebla, NABU 1996/128.
PASQUALI, J., 2005, Remarques comparatives sur la symbolique du vêtement à Ébla, dans Memoriae Diakonoff, L.
Kogan et alii (éds), Babel und Bibel 2, 165-184. Winona Lake.
PASQUALI, J., 2020, Le rôle du soleil et de l’eau dans le culte des ancêtres d’après les données épigraphiques éblaïtes à la lumière de la
religion comparée et de l’ethnologie, dans I. Arkhipov, L. Kogan et N. Koslova (éds), The Third Millennium.
Studies in Early Mesopotamia and Syria in Honor of Walter Sommerfeld et Manfred Krebernik, 595-616. Leiden.
SALLABERGER, W., 2018, Kura, Youthful Ruler and Martial City-God of Ebla, dans Ebla and Beyond. Ancient Near Eastern
Studies after Fifty Years of Discoveries at Tell Mardikh. Proceedings of the International Congress Held in Rome,
15th-17th December 2014, P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock et M. D’Andrea (éds), 107-139. Wiesbaden.
Jacopo PASQUALI <pasquali.jacopo@laposte.net>
5, Avenue du 7e Génie, 84000 Avignon (FRANCE)

– 12 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

6) More on the “Forest Wardens” of Ebla Sources — Writing two years ago, this author discussed the
term ME.SIG gištaskarin/giš, “warden of fir1)/timber” (Steinkeller 2021: 181 and n. 28), which appears
several times in Ebla documentation. At that time, I was aware of four attestations of this term:
(1) 5 garments for 2 maškim Mu-du-ri₂ ME.SIG kurki giš
taskarin, “2 agents of Muduri, the warden of the
mountains of fir” (ARET 15 9 Obv. iv 3-6);
(2) 2 garments for Ar-mi-umki ME.SIG gištaskarin, “a man of Armium, the warden of fir” (ARET 15 38 Obv.
xii 12 – rev. i 2);
(3) 2 garments for Ar-mi-umki ME.SIG gištaskarin (ARET 15 51 Obv. x 10-15)2);
(4) [x garments] for ME.⸢SIG⸣ giš kurki gištaskarin, “the ⸢warden⸣ of the trees of the mountains of fir” (ARET
3 235 Obv. v 1’-2’).
This designation, which in (1) and (4) is further qualified by kurki, “mountain(s),”3) appears to
denote an official in charge of fir forests located to the northwest of Ebla, in the Amanus mountains and/or
in Jebel an-Nusayrīyah. In (2) and (3), the ME.SIG is identified as a native of Armi(um). The case of
Muduri (1) is less clear; he could stem either from Armi(um) or Kakmium.4)
To these attestations, two mentions of a “forest warden” may now be added. These examples,
which appear in the unpublished tablets TM.75.G.1936 and TM.75.G.2243, cited here thanks to the
kindness of Giovanna Biga, concern a certain Ilum-BALA:
1 gu-mugtug₂-I 1 SALtug₂
1 gu-mugtug₂ 1 SALtug₂ 1 ib₃-IIItug₂ gun₃
I₃-lum-BALA
Mi-da-ri₂-šu
l[u₂]
lu₂ I₃-lum-BALA
Ma₂-LUM
ME.SIG
ME.SIG giš
giš tir
tir
(TM.75.G.2243 Obv. vi 1-5)
(TM.75.G.1936 Obv. v 7-12)

Importantly, in yet another Ebla source the same Ilum-Bala is alternatively identified as en-nun-
ak gištir:
1 gu-dul₃tug₂
I₃-lum-BALA
lu₂ Ma₂-LUM
en-nun-ak
1 gištir
(ARET 3 468 Obv. iv 13-17)

Since en-nun-ak undoubtedly means “guard, warden,” this example confirms that, as argued by
Catagnoti 2019, ME.SIG denotes the same type of functionary.
The interchange of ME.SIG with en-nun-ak is documented in four other sources as well:
1 gu-mugtug₂
1 gu-mugtug₂
I₃-lum-BALA
I₃-lum-BALA
ME.SIG
en-nu(sic)-ak
ambar
d Ambarki
Utu d
Utu
(TM.75.G.2252 Rev. ii 1-5;
(ARET 4 15 Obv. vii 4-8)
unpub. cited courtesy of G. Biga5))

[…] […]
I₃-lum-BALA [x] gu-[m]ugtug₂
en-nun-ak [I₃]-lum-BALA
ambar en-nun-ak
d
Utu [amba]r
[…] [dUtu]
(ARET 12 282 Obv.? i’ 1’-4’) (ARET 12 1319 Obv.? i’ 1’-5’)

– 13 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

Although these examples too concern an Ilum-BALA, it is unlikely that he should be the same
person as the “forest warden” of that name. Since ambarki dUtu, “the marsh of Utu,” appears to denote a
cultic place celebrating the rise of the Sungod,6) it probably has no connection with forests.
As for the “forest warden,” the fact that the name Ilum-BALA is very common in Ebla
documentation makes it impossible to identify at this time the place of his activities.7)
In conclusion, the data here discussed demonstrate that, at the time of the Ebla archives, forests
located in Ebla’s neighboring mountains were supervised by designated local officials, who were
responsible for the harvesting of timber as well as for the exportation of it to foreign locales, such as Ebla
and other places. It appears that such forests were intentionally managed and protected. As I pointed out
(Steinkeller 2021: 181), the existence of such “forest wardens” may shed light on the background—and
even possible historicity—of Huwawa, the legendary guardian of the “Cedar Forest” in “Gilgameš Epic.”8)
Here it may not be irrelevant that Huwawa’s forest was situated in the vicinity of Ebla: šu-nu iṭ-ḫu<-ú> a-
na ma-ti-⸢Ib-la⸣ (with crasis), “they (i.e., Gilgameš and Enkidu) approached the land of Ebla” (George
2003: vol. 1, 234, Old Babylonian Schøyen₂ Obv. line 26). Note further that, in the same composition,
Huwawa is described as maṣṣaru, “guard” (George 2003, vol. 1, 236, Old Babylonian Schøyen₂ Rev. line
60; 264 Old Babylonian Ishchali line 34’), an Akkadian correspondent of lu₂-en-nun.
Notes
1. For the identification of gištaskarin as the Cilician fir (Abies cilicica), see Steinkeller 2021: 182-184.
2. Note that this passage is followed by the following entry: 4 garments / maškim-e-gi₄ / Ar-mi-umki / u₅ ’A₃-
maki / gištaskarin / šu mu-taka₄, “for the chief deputy of Armi(um), the conveyor of Ama, who delivered fir” (Obv. x
16-22). These two entries undoubtedly concern the same delivery of fir. For the role of the “conveyor of Ama,” see
Steinkeller 2021: 180.
3. Another mention of the “mountains of fir” appears in TM.75.G.10041+10249 Obv. viii 3-6 (cited by
Catagnoti 2016: 35), which talks of a man traveling to the “mountains of fir” (DU.DU kurki gištaskarin).
4. See Steinkeller 2021: 181.
5. Cited already by Pasquali 2018b.
6. See Pasquali 2018a; 2018b. For this interpretation, see especially the mention of en-nun-ak ud e₃ dUtu in
ARET 11 2 Rev. iv 11-13.
7. Other attestations of I₃-lum-BALA lu₂ Ma₂-LUM are ARET 4 4 Obv. iv 4-6; ARET 12 99 Obv.? i? 1’-6’;
ARET 12 686 Obv.? iii’ 1’-3’; TM.75.G.2434+10280 Rev. i 5-7; cited courtesy of G. Biga. However, these examples
do not throw additional light on his background.
8. For similar speculations, see Bonechi and Winters 2021: 175-176.

Bibliography
BONECHI, Marco and Ryan WINTERS (2021), “Ebla through Huwawa’s Gaze: Inner and Outer Perspectives of Early
Syria, between Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Anatolia,” pp. 171-190 in Current Research in Early
Mesopotamian Studies. Workshop Organized at the 65th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale,
Paris 2019, ed. by A. Bramanti et al., dubsar 21. Münster.
CATAGNOTI, Amalia (2016), “Il lessico dei vegetali ad Ebla: bosso,” pp. 29-53 in Libiamo ne’ lieti calici: Ancient Near
Eastern Studies Presented to Lucio Milano on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday by Pupils,
Colleagues and Friends, ed. by P. Corò et al., AOAT 436. Münster.
CATAGNOTI, Amalia (2019), “Sorveglianti e custodi nei testi di Ebla, fra lessico e prosopografia.” Asia Anteriore
Antica. Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Cultures 1: 21-41.
GEORGE, Andrew (2003), The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts, Vols.
1-2. Oxford.
PASQUALI, Jacopo (2018a), “L’étang (AMBAR) du Soleil à Ébla.” NABU 2018/39.
PASQUALI, Jacopo (2018b), “Encore l’étang (AMBAR) du Soleil à Ébla.” NABU 2018/94.
STEINKELLER, Piotr (2021), “International Trade in Greater Mesopotamia during Late Pre-Sargonic Times: The Case
of Ebla as Illustrated by Her Participation in the Euphratean Timber Trade,” pp. 173-197 in
Measures and Money. Understanding the Technologies of Early Trade in a Comparative
Perspective, Proceedings of Two Workshops Funded by the European Research Council (ERC),
ed. by L. Rahmstorf et al., Weight & Value 2. Kiel.
Piotr STEINKELLER <steinkel@fas.harvard.edu>
Harvard University (USA)

– 14 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

7) One Ur III Tablet from Irisaĝrig in a Japanese Private Collection — The following cuneiform tablet
is from an anonymous Japanese Private Collection. The tablet dates to the twelfth month of the fifth regnal
year of Šu-Suen, the fourth ruler in the Third Dynasty of Ur (Ur III, ca. 2112-2004 BC) from Irisaĝrig. The
paper presented here is a whole edition including transliteration and translation. I would like to thank the
Japanese owner of this tablet for permitting me to publish it here.
Obv. 1) 1 tun₃-la₂ zabar 1 bronze container used for pouring dirt
2) 1 ma-ša-lum zabar 1 bronze drinking vessel
3) 3 tu-di-da zabar 3 bronze toggle pins
4) 1 gir₂-zal gi-na 1 medium quality knife
5) 1 gir₂-zal zabar 1 bronze knife
6) 1 kam-kam-ma-tum zabar 1 bronze earring
7) 1 har zabar 1 bronze ring
8) 1 urudagab₂-šu-nir 1 copper emblem
9) 1 na₄kišib₃ hi-a 1 various seal
10) 1 na₄kišib ze₂ 1 cut seal
11) 1 na₄kinkin ze₂ 1 small cut millstone
12) 2 na₄ hi-a 2 various stones
Rev. 1) 1 na₄an-za-am ⸢ZA ŠU HI⸣ 1 stone drinking vessel
2) gu₂-ne-sag-ga₂ gal₂-la were to the sacristy
blank
3) nig₂-gur₁₁ dNin-ni-gar possessions of Ninnigar
4) A-bu-šu-ni gudu₄ Abušuni the gudu-priest
5) šu ba-ti received.
6) iti še-sag₁₁-ku₅ Month: “Harvest.”
7) mu us₂-sa dŠu-dSuen / lugal Uri₅ki-ke₄ / Year following: “Šu-Suen, king of Ur, built the
bad₃ mar-tu Mu-ri-/iq-ti-id-ni-im / mu-du₃-a Amorite wall Muriq-tidnim.”

For the various treasure (metals and stones), see OWEN 2013; SIGRIST & OZAKI 2019. For the deity dNin-
ni-gar, see FRAYNE & STUCKEY 2021, 82. For the location of Irisaĝrig, see MOLINA 2013; VIANO 2019;
ZWAID & CRIPPS 2020. The three signs, ⸢ZA ŠU? HI?⸣, in the first line of reverse are beyond my
apprehension.
Bibliography
FRAYNE, Douglas R. & STUCKEY, Johanna H. (2021), A Handbook of Gods and Goddesses of the Ancient Near East: Three
Thousand Deities of Anatolia, Syria, Israel, Sumer, Babylonia, Assyria, and Elam. University Park.
MOLINA, Manuel (2013), “On the Location of Irisaĝrig”, in From the 21st Century B.C. to the 21st Century A.D.:
Proceedings of the International Conference on Sumerian Studies Held in Madrid 22-24 July 2010,
Steven Garfinkle and Manuel Moline (eds.). Winona Lake, 59-88.
OWEN, David (2013), Cuneiform Texts Primarily from Iri-Saĝrig / Āl-Šarrākī and the History of the Ur III Period. Bethesda.
SIGRIST, Marcel & OZAKI, Tohru (2019), Tablets from the Iri-Sagrig Archive. University Park.
VIANO, Maurizio (2019), “On the Location of Irisaĝrig Once Again”, JCS 71, 35-52.
ZWAID, Wafaa H. & CRIPPS, Eric L. (2020), “Some Ur III Texts from Irisaĝrig in the Iraq Museum”, Akkadica 141, 1-18.
Changyu LIU <liucy@zjnu.edu.cn>
Department of History, Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua 321004 (CHINA)

8) The index letters of Assur 18764 — It is well known that Andrae’s excavation of Assur was
exceptionally careful for his time. Even now, its legacy is not yet fully exploited. The subarchive Assur
18764 of the Middle Assyrian ginau agency (M4A) was contained in an unbroken pot. Perhaps the
excavators had not fully realized that the order of such a set of tablets contains essential information, but
to a large extent they must have labeled them in the order they took them out of the pot. Now we can
recognize that the resulting order of their index letters (18764a to 18764ag) is strongly correlated with that
of their eponyms. One must disregard two major outliers (18764g and 18764af), but apart from them
deviations are minor. The oldest tablets are from the time of the ginau supervisor Aba-la-ide and clearly

– 15 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

lay at the bottom of the pot. Without any further disorder, their index letters shoud have been x, y, z, aa,
ab, ac, ad, ae, ag. Instead, they were labeled s, x, z, aa, ab, ac, ad, ae, ag. According to Freydank (2016,
23), the latest tablets among this group should be those from the eponymates of Ibašši-ili and Haburraru.
Indeed, these come with the index letters s, x, z. Based on these observations, it should be possible to
determine the order of the subsequent ginau supervisors Sin-nadin-apli and Sin-uballit. According to
MARV 6, 2, the latter was in office immediately before the accession of Aššur-dan I. The index letters for
Sin-nadin-apli are a, b1, b2, d, e, t, t?, those for Sin-uballit are c1, f, m?, o?, p, r, w, y. The label t? is very
dubious, because Weidner lists the tablet as 18764 (?) (AfO 13, 314) and 18764 (a) (AfO 16, 215). Thus
there is some disorder involving two or three of fifteen tablets, but it is clear that Sin-uballit came first.
This is in agreement with Freydank’s original order (1991, 69f. and 73). He later inverted it (Freydank
2016, 29), because MARV 7, 71 links the eponymate of Marduk-aha-ereš from the time of Sin-nadin-apli
to the one of Pišqiya. Since Freydank himself discovered that there was a second eponym Pišqiya from the
time of Aššur-dan I (2016, 40f.), this argument has become unreliable. Moreover, MARV 5, 12 links the
eponymate of Marduk-aha-ereš to the one of Atamar-den-Aššur, whose placement under Aššur-dan I is
uncontroversial. In conclusion, Sin-nadin-apli was a ginau supervisor under Aššur-dan I.
Bibliography
FREYDANK, H., 1991. Beiträge zur mittelassyrischen Chronologie und Geschichte. SGKAO 21. Berlin.
FREYDANK, H., 2016. Assyrische Jahresbeamte des 12. Jh. v. Chr. AOAT 429. Münster.
Werner NAHM <wnahm@stp.dias.ie>

9) En marge d'ARCHIBAB, 38 : la destruction des murailles de Larsa — Dans son article sur « le
mystère des remparts de Larsa », J.-L. Huot a expliqué la disparition de la muraille de la ville comme un
phénomène dû à l'érosion1). Pourtant, une lettre de Mari nous apprend quel fut le premier coupable : il
s'agit de Hammu-rabi, lorsqu'il s'empara de Larsa en 1763, après un long siège. Une lettre de Zimri-Addu
et Menirum à leur seigneur, le roi de Mari Zimri-Lim, décrit les opérations postérieures à la prise de la ville
et au transfert à Babylone de Rim-Sin, de son entourage ainsi que de ses biens2). La l. 6 est certes un peu
endommagée, mais la photo montre bien la fin du signe BÀD (il ne peut s'agir de [É.G]AL) et la l. 8 indique
que la démolition dura longtemps3). Cette lettre est jusqu'à présent notre unique source relative au
démantèlement de la muraille de Larsa. Elle permet donc de comprendre pourquoi, dans le prologue de son
Code, Hammu-rabi se décrit comme « celui qui a épargné Larsa 4)» : le vainqueur babylonien s'est contenté
de démolir la muraille, mais a laissé la ville intacte.
Que se passa-t-il sous Samsu-iluna ? À lire la traduction du nom de l'an 11 de ce roi par M.
Horsnell, les murailles de Larsa auraient été à nouveau détruites5) : « The year: Samsuiluna, the king, at the
command of An and Enlil, destroyed the (great) walls of Ur, (Larsa) (and) Uruk and defeated the army of
Akkad for the < second(?) > time. » Cette traduction a entraîné des malentendus6). En fait, aucun texte ne
donne la séquence Ur, Larsa et Uruk : on a simplement un texte d'Ur dans lequel le scribe a commis une
erreur, écrivant Larsa au lieu d'Uruk, comme Horsnell lui-même l'a indiqué… en note (p. 195 n. 65)7).
Samsu-iluna aurait eu d'autant plus de mal à détruire la muraille de Larsa que son père s'en était déjà chargé
vingt-trois ans auparavant. Heureusement, les techniques nouvelles de télédétection permettent à l'équipe
dirigée par R. Vallet de reconstituer le détail de cette muraille, dont, en dehors de la « porte Parrot »,
pratiquement plus rien n'est visible à l'œil nu8).
1. J.-L. Huot & J. Suire, « Le mystère des remparts de Larsa », dans G. Chambon, M. Guichard & A.-I.
Langlois (éd.), avec la participation de Th. Römer et N. Ziegler, De l'argile au numérique. Mélanges assyriologiques
en l'honneur de Dominique Charpin, PIPOAC 3, Louvain/Paris/Bristol, 2019, p. 455-468.
2. ARM 27 158. Voir déjà mon commentaire dans D. Charpin, « Histoire politique du Proche-Orient amorrite
(2002-1595) », dans D. Charpin, D. O. Edzard & M. Stol, Mesopotamien. Die altbabylonische Zeit, OBO 160/4,
Fribourg & Göttingen, 2004, p. 25-480 (p. 323 n. 1680).
3. La photo est accessible sur http://www.archibab.fr/T7959.
4. M. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, WAW 6, Atlanta, 1995, p. 77 ii 32 : gāmil
Larsa.
5. M. J. A. Horsnell, The Year Names of the First Dynasty of Babylon. Volume 2. The Year-Names
reconstructed and Critically Annotated in Light of their Exemplars, Hamilton, 1999, p. 195.

– 16 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

6. Comme A. Seri, The House of Prisoners…, SANER 2, Berlin/New York, 2013, p. 33 : le tableau reprend
explicitement Horsnell, en omettant les parenthèses ( « he destroyed the walls of Ur, Larsa, (and) Uruk »).
7. Il s'agit de « KF 1992 » selon Horsnell : ARCHIBAB permet de retrouver ce texte, qui est UET 5 268
(photo sur https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/search?museum_number=131283). J'ai collationné ce texte au
BM et l'ai réédité ; cf. D. Charpin, « Les tablettes retrouvées dans des caveaux funéraires d'époque paléo-babylonienne
à Ur », dans D. Charpin et al., ARCHIBAB 4. Nouvelles recherches sur les archives d'Ur d'époque paléo-babylonienne,
Mémoires de NABU 22, Paris, 2020, p. 87-118 (p. 96, avec commentaire à la l. 26 p. 97).
On trouve une erreur du même type à propos de l'année 14 de Sin-muballiṭ (Horsnell Year Names Babylon
2, Hamilton, 1999, p. 98). Horsnell indique « of Larsa (and Ur) », ce qui est inexact : la liste BM 92702 a (sûrement
par erreur) ŠEŠ.UNUki au lieu de UD.UNUki, mais aucune source ne donne les deux toponymes.
8. Le travail a débuté en 2019 et s'est poursuivi en 2021 et 2022 : voir R. Vallet (dir.), Larsa-‘Uwaili Annual
Report 2021-2022. Preliminary Report on the Results of the XVIth & XVIIth Campaigns at Larsa and the Xth Campaign
at Tell ‘Uwali, 2022 (bientôt disponible sur HAL).
Dominique CHARPIN <dominique.charpin@college-de-france.fr>
Collège de France, Paris (FRANCE)

10) Notes on the Epic of Zimri-Lim — When preparing a Russian translation of the composition (with A.
Uspensky, now in print at Vestnik drevnei istorii), I understood a few passages differently from the edition
of Michaël Guichard (2014) and later studies. I have collected my suggestions in this note, in the hope that
they will be of interest for the international audience.
i 16) LUGAL ša-bé-e-em ú-ša-ar-bi-ma1)
He (Anum) exulted the vociferous king…
The editor identified the word ša-BI-e-em as a by-form of šūpûm ‘resplendent’ (“illustre”).
However, -ā- in the first syllable remained unexplained2); more importantly, the ending -êm can only result
from -iam, while the base of šūpûm is *šawpu-. A better candidate is šabûm (*šabium) ‘vociferous’, the
adjective counterpart of šabûm ‘to be loud’3). This word also appears in l. i 27 as an epithet of Adad (dIŠKUR
ša-bu-ú), this time correctly translated by the editor as ‘resounding’ (“tonnant”). The image of ‘vociferous
king’ may seem extravagant, but one should keep in mind that Zimri-Lim is compared to Adad in these
lines (Guichard 2014: 34).
i 34–37) at-ta te-ep-te₉ pu-šu-uq ša-du-i
ša sí-ik-k[u-ur-šu we-r]u-ú gišIG-sú NA₄
zi-im-r[i-li-im p]é-ti-wu gišIGḫi.a dan-nim
ša s[í-ik-ku-ur-ši-na we-ru]-⸢ú⸣ gišIG-sí-na NA₄
It was you who opened the mountain’s narrow passage,
Which has the bolt of copper, the door of stone.
Zimri-Lim is the one who opens the doors of the stronghold,
Which have the bolt of copper, the door (leaf) of stone.
The editor interpreted gišIG ZU and gišIG ZI-NA as rare logograms for types of doors and translated
them as “porte à panneaux” and “porte à treillage” respectively. A simpler solution is to read here
pronominal suffixes referring to pušuq šadū’i in ll. 34–35 and to dalāt dannim in ll. 36–37. If this is true,
the term daltum is used in ll. 36 and 37 in different meanings, ‘door’ (as a whole) and ‘door leaf’. Though
unexpected at the first sight, exactly the same usage is found in the Descent of Ištar (Lapinkivi 2010), ll.
17–18: amaḫḫaṣ daltu sikkūru ašabbir amaḫḫaṣ sippum-ma ušabalkat dalāti ‘I will smash the door and
break the bolt, I will smash the doorjambs and overturn the door leaves’.
In the middle of ll. 35 and 37, the editor restored [ed-l]u-ú “fermaient”. However, the plene writing
of the plural morpheme is unusual in Mari (and would be unique in the Epic); the half-broken sign in l. 35
is not a doubtless LU either. My restauration, which remains hypothetical, is based on a possible parallel
between ‘copper’ and ‘stone’ in both lines.
ii 24) ša-ti ta-ḫa-zu ⸢x-x-e/ia⸣ pa-ni-iš-ni
The battle is woven … in front of us.
Guichard tentatively analysed the last four signs as pa-ni iš-ni “mon plan est changé”. Cf.,
however, pa-ni-iš-ša ‘in front of her’ in Agušaya A (Groneberg 1997), l. vii 22.

– 17 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

The photograph does not make possible a reliable reading of the preceding three signs. Guichard
suggests ⸢e-li⸣-ia “contre moi”, with reservations.
Finally, a chronological note: the editor suggested, based on a considerable amount of evidence,
that the composition dated to the middle of ZL 1 (Guichard 2014: 70–71). Another confirmation of this
dating may be found in the accounting document M.7224 (ARM 30, p. 220). It was drawn up in Terqa on
27/v/ZL 1, while the Epic ends with a description of Zimri-Lim’s visit to Terqa. M.7224 does not mention
the king, but we know that the accounting documents found in Mari and written in other places were usually
composed during the king’s journeys (Villard 1992).
Notes
The research has been supported by RFBR grant 20-512-22002.
1. For the reading ú-ša-ar-bi-ma rather than ⸢lu?⸣-ša-ar-bi-ma of the edition, see already Guichard’s own
commentary (2014: 33), followed by Miglio (2017: 231).
2. The Neo-Assyrian form šá-pu-tú quoted in CAD Š/3 329 is unique and probably irregular; one expects
šēpu’um in Assyrian.
3. For this verb, see Lambert (2013: 470), who pointed out that it must be distinguished from šapûm ‘to be
thick, dense’. The two roots and their derivations are confused in both dictionaries (AHw. 1176-1177; CAD Š/1 487).

References
GRONEBERG, B. 1997: Lob der Ištar. Gebet und Ritual an die altbabylonische Venusgöttin. Groningen.
GUICHARD, M. 2014: L’épopée de Zimri-Lîm. Paris.
LAMBERT, W. 2013: Babylonian Creation Myths. Winona Lake.
LAPINKIVI, P. 2010: The Neo-Assyrian Myth of Ištar’s Descent and Resurrection. Winona Lake.
MIGLIO, A. 2017: Epic of Zimri-Lim. In: K. Lawson Younger (ed.), The Context of Scripture. Vol. 4. Leiden, 231–
234.
VILLARD, P. 1992: Le déplacement des trésors royaux d’après les archives royales de Mari. In: D. Charpin, F. Joannès
(eds.), La circulation des biens, des personnes et des idées dans le Proche-Orient ancien, Actes de
la XXXVIIIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Paris, 8-10 juillet 1991). Paris, 195–205.
Ilya ARKHIPOV <arkhipoff@mail.ru>
Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of World History, Moscow (RUSSIA)

11) Anthroponymic Evidence for the Divine Epithet *θ̣ūr- — Litholatry and theopetramorphy (the
deification of rocks, stones, crags, mountains, stelae, etc.) are ubiquitous religious phenomena among
ancient Southwest Asian cultures (Mettinger 1995). While a great variety of Semitic texts throughout the
second and first millennia attest to such ideas, more still are attested in anthroponyms (e.g., Lipinski 2000,
600-604; Heimpel 1997). Of course, interpreting personal names is not without its problems, especially
concerning religious history, but they do provide valuable information about concepts of deities and divine
activity.
One theopetramorphic vocable within this specific theological lexicon is the common Central
Semitic noun *θ̣ūr-, ‘rock,’ ‘mountain’. Clear evidence for the use of *θ̣ūr- as a divine title is found
throughout the Hebrew Bible (BH ṣûr, e.g., Deut 32:4, 15, 18, 30-31, 34). Hebrew epigraphic texts also
attest to the practice (cf. Ketef Ḥinnom I, 14). Additionally, the pre-Islamic deity ʿAmm bears similar titles
(Prioletta 2018). In Yemen, hypostases of ʿAmm are identified as “master of the rock of GN” (bʿl ẓr + GN).
Herein I would like to catalogue a variety of Central Semitic personal names from the Old Babylonian
period through the Neo-Assyrian period that show that *θ̣ūr- was used as an appellation for divine beings
and deified ancestors.
It is possible to classify *θ̣ūr- as a divine epithet based on the onomastic record first because this
nominal element regularly appears as the predicate in nominal-sentence names (“so-and-so is *θ̣ūr-).
Secondly, *θ̣ūr- predicates a theophoric element. Either *θ̣ūr- qualifies a theonym, as in ṣwryhdd (“my
rock/mountain is Hadad”) (NTA 14:4’) or a kinship term, as in ha-am-mi-ṣú-ri (“my ancestor is my
rock/mountain”) (OTBR 148 f10). On rare occasions, *θ̣ūr- functions as the theophoric element, as in some
biblical names pdhṣwr (“the rock has ransomed”) (Num 1:10; 2:20; 7:54, 59; 10:23) or in South Arabian
names like ẓwrʾmr (“the rock commands”) (U.85 G/F 1:1) or ẓwrʿdn (“the rock is eternal”?) (CIH 514:4).

– 18 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

Also note the Amorite name ṣú-ri-la-ri-im (“may my rock/mountain be exalted”) (ARM 18 35 r14). The
presence of *θ̣ūr- in anthroponyms and the biblical evidence suggest that *θ̣ūr- served as an epithet for
divine beings.
The earliest personal names that contain *θ̣ūr- appear during the 18th century and are mainly found
in Syria (e.g., Mari, Qaṭṭara) (cf. Streck 2000; Gelb 1980; Huffmon 1965). Possibly dated to the same
period (Rollston 2010, 13-14), but from much further south, a monomial name ṣr is found twice in Proto-
Canaanite inscriptions from Serabit el-Khadim (Sinai 352; 364). At least one name (ṣûra-šar, “Assur is a
rock/mountain[?]”) is attested in the Amarna period (14th c.) and belongs to a self-proclaimed ruler of a
Levantine city-state (EA 319). The Emar tablets also attest to *θ̣ūr- as a nominal element, as in ši-ni-ṣú-ri
(“Sin is my rock/mountain”) (Pruzsinszky 2003, 198). In the Neo-Assyrian period, more examples of *θ̣ūr-
names appear beginning with the reign of Adad-nerari III (PAB-ṭu-ri, [PNAE, 68]) through Assur-uballiṭ
II (a-ḫa-ṭu-ri (SAA 14 434, 48). Some names appear in the records of the Assyrian heart land, like in
records from Nineveh (a-a-ṭú-ri [SAA 06 227, o3]) or Dur Katlimmu (dA.10–ṭu-ri-i [BATSH 6 48, 3]).
Others are found in western imperial contexts like Samʾal (Zincirli) (brṣr [KAI 215]) or Beersheba (ʾlṣr
[Golub 2017, 39]).
The geographic distribution of the names is also evidence for the widespread use of *θ̣ūr- as an
epithet. Names that contain *θ̣ūr- are attested throughout the Levant (e.g., Israel, Judah, Ammon), Syro-
Mesopotamia (e.g., Mari, Emar, Qaṭṭara, Nineveh, Kalḫu), and Saba and Qataban (modern Yemen).
The extant names mention a variety of deities: Aya, Ea, Adad/Hadad, Apladad, Dagan, Ilu/El,
Išḫara, Ištar, Aššur, Nahar. The hypocoristics “lord” and “lady” are also paired with *θ̣ūr- (a-du-ni-ṭu-ri
[SAA 06 41, o4], ṭu-ri-ba-al-tú [SAA 14 232, r1]) The names indicate that *θ̣ūr- is not restricted to a single
deity or divine archetype (e.g., storm god, warrior goddess). Moreover, both male and female deities are
identified as *θ̣ūr- in the names.
Consistent with Semitic naming practicies, the *θ̣ūr-names employ kinship terms as theophoric
elements. Among them are terms like "ancestor" (e.g., ṣú-ri-ḫa-am-mu), "father" (e.g., a-bi-ṣú-ri),
"maternal uncle" (ka-ṣú-ri-ḫa-la [M.2802]), "brother" (e.g., a-ḫa-ṭu-ri [SAA 14 434, 48]), and "son (of)"
(brṣr [KAI 215]). Interestingly, there are no feminine kinship terms. The kinship names imply that
petramorphic language was unrestricted to “high” gods and goddesses. The kinship *θ̣ūr-names also
underscore the presence of ancestor veneration in ancient Southwest Asia.
Overall, the onomastic evidence regarding *θ̣ūr- indicates its used throughout the second and first-
half of the first millennium BCE. Its sustained role as a predicate in Central Semitic personal names
suggests that *θ̣ūr- functioned as a divine epithet for both deities and (perhaps) deified ancestors for at
least a thousand years. So, while the Hebrew Bible gives the impression that Yahweh is the only god who
is known as ṣûr (Isa 44:8), the onomastic evidence demonstrates that many other divinities of ancient
Southwest Asia were identified as such.
Catalogue of *θ̣ūr-Names from the Old Babylonian Period through the Neo-Assyrian Period
Attested Form Source
1. a-be-ṣú-ra 1. Gelb #52
2. a-bi-ṣú-ri 2. FM 9 71: 4', 9', 10'; 10 18: iv 32'
1. a-du-ni-ṭu-ri 1. SAAo 06 41: o4
1. PAB-ṭu-ri 1. PNAE, 68
2. a-ḫa-ṭu-ri 2. SAAo 14 434: 48
1. ʾḥṣr 1. CWSSS #763
1. a-a-ṭú-ri 1. SAAo 06 227: o3
1. dA.10–ṭu-ri-i 1. BATSH 6 48:3
1. brṣr 1. KAI 215: 1, 3, 5
1. ḫa-am-mi-ṣú-ri 1. OBTR 21: 6; 27: 8; 96: 5; 148: 7, 10
1. diš-ha-ra-ṣú-ri 1. FM 4 22: 14
1. eš₄-tár-ṣú-ri-LUGAL 1. FM 4 3: iii 33; 13: iv 63
1. ʾlṣr 1. Golub, "Personal Names," 39.
2. ʾlṣr 2. CAI #241
3. ʾlyṣr 3. HAE Seb (8) 2: 1

– 19 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

1. ka-ṣú-ri-ḫa-la 1. RIME 4.06.08.02, ex. 01: 96

1.ka-ṣú-ri-DINGIR 1. M.18475: 6
1. dID₂-ṣú-ri 1. Gelb #3652
1. se-eʾ-ṭu-ri 1. SAAo 06 026: r5
1. ṣr 1. Sinai 352; 364
1. ṣú-ri-a-bi 1. ARM 22 14: 14
1. ṣú-ra-ta-nu 1. APN, 137
1. ṣwry 1. CWSSS #840
2. ṣwr[... 2. NTA 1: v 19
3. ṣry (?) 3. KTU2 4.69 II: 4; 4.338: 5; 4. 778.4; 4.782: 6
1-2. ṣú-ri-ia 1. ARM 14 98: 11; 26/2 303: 41'; 305: 5'; 315: 25, 27
3. ṣú-ra-a 2. OBTR 165: 5'
3. Gelb #6612
1. ṣú-ra-šar 1. EA 319: 4
1. ṣú-ri-dda-gan 1. ARM 21 138: 2; 23 235: 1; FM 10 81: iv 28', 32'; M.15068: 4
1. ṣú-ri-dIŠKUR 1. A.4280
2. ṣú-ri-dIŠKUR 2. FM 2 67: 22
3. ṣwryhdd 3. NTA 14: 4'
1. ṣú-ri-ḫa-am-mu 1. ARM 6 73: 5; 21 339: 4; 23 12: 2; 23 18: 10; 23 236: 236
2. ṣú-ri-ḫa-am-mu-ú 2. FM 6 4: 21
3. ṣú-ri-ha-mu 3. M.10061: 3'
4. ṣú-ra-ḫa-am-mu-ú 4. A.3281: 3; ARM 2 53: 28; 3 58: 11; 14 83: 38; 28 25: 5; FM 8 42: 3; M.11634: 4
5. ṣú-ra-ḫa-am-mu 5. ARM 2 53: 15, 19; 2 104: 5, 10; 3 36: 5; 1 105: 7, 9; 3 36: 5; 14 83: 7, 10, 13, 14, 32,
38; 21 370: 3'; 26/1 74: 21; 190: 1'; 219: 25'; FM 11 74; M.6166+: 6'; M.12631: 9', 38'
1. ṣú-ri-DINGIR 1. Gelb #6221
1. ṣú-ri-la-ri-im 1. ARM 1 88: 19; 18 35: 14; 26/1 43: 5; 33 86: 20'; FM 16 33: 3
1. ṣú-ri-e-ra-aḫ 1. Gelb #6622
1. ši-ni-ṣú-ri 1. PTE, 198.
1. ṭú-ri-i 1. SAAo 07 189: r.e. 14; 191: r 9'; 192: r 2; 210: r 18
1. ṭu-ri-da-a 1. Gezer 3: 5
1. ṭú-ri-ba-al-tú 1. SAAo 14 232: r 1
1. ṭu-ri-ra-me 1. Marqasi 6: 2
1. ẓwrkrb 1. YM 10598: 1
2. ẓwrkrb 2. Y.85.AQ/19:1
1. ẓwrʿly 1. Y. 85 GF/3: 1
1-2. ẓwrʿdn 1. RES 2743: 7
2. CIH 514: 4
1. ẓwrʾmr 1. U. 85 G/F 1: 1

Bibliography
GELB, I.J. (1980) Computer-Aided Analysis of Amorite, AS 21, Chicago.
GOLUB, M. (2017) “Personal Names in Judah in the Iron Age II”, JSS 62, 19-58.
HEIMPEL, W. (1997) “My-Father-is-my-Rock”, N.A.B.U. 1997/2.
HUFFMON, H. (1965) Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts: A Structural and Lexical Study, Baltimore, 1965.
LIPIŃSKI, E. (2000) The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion, OLA 100, Leuven.
METTINGER, T. N. D. (1995) No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in its Ancient Near Eastern Context, CB 42, Stockholm.
PRIOLETTA, A. (2018) “Ancient South Arabian Graffiti from Shabathān (Governorate of al-Bayadō, Yemen),” in L.
Nehmé and A. Al-Jallad (eds.), To The Madbar and Back Again: Studies in the Languages, Archaeology,
and Cultures of Arabia Dedicated to Michael C.A. Macdonald, SSLL 92, Leiden, 116-153.
PRUZSINSZKY, R. (2003) Die Personennamen der Texte aus Emar, SCCNH 13, Potomac.
STRECK, M. P. (2000) Das amurritische Onomastikon der altbabylonischen Zeit: Die Amurriter. Die onomastische
Forschung. Orthographie und Phonologie. Nominalmorphologie, AOAT 271/1.

Online resources : https://www.archibab.fr/ ; https://cdli.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/

Taylor O. GRAY <tog5197@psu.edu>
Department of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies – Penn State (USA)

– 20 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

12) Hurrian ugri “leg” and tiža “heart” in HSS 14 105 — HSS 14 105 is a long administrative list, which
was originally published in copy only, but is now available with transliteration and a photo on CDLI as
P408708. The text enumerates and describes certain precious objects referred to as ḳarnu ša ḫaigallatḫe
“the horn of a …”. There can be little doubt that this object is typologically the same as ḳarnu aigalluḫu,
found once in EA 25 iii 49. The list of gifts of Tušratta, EA 25, is in general similar to HSS 14 105, in that
both texts give detailed descriptions of valuable objects, dwelling in particular on the amount of precious
materials invested in them. Also, both texts contain a large number of words not used elsewhere in
Akkadian, which most likely originate from Hurrian. Hence, EA 25 turns out to be a useful parallel that
helps to solve some of the difficulties of the poorly understood tablet HSS 14 105.
The first difficulty is the term ḫaigallatḫu, which is insufficiently treated in the standard
dictionaries (AHw 1542, CAD A1 231). The comparison with aigalluḫu suggests that both are normal
Hurrian derivates from the base (ḫ)aigall- with the nominal suffix -atḫe (WEGNER 2007, 59) or the
adjectival suffix (-o/u)-ġe (WEGNER 2007, 54) respectively. The lexeme ḫaigalli is attested in the Hurrian
texts from Boğazköy, but its meaning there is uncertain (WILHELM 1992, 129-130), as the traditional
translation as an animal name (LAROCHE 1980, 89) is in fact based on the evidence of EA 25. There the
“aigallean horn” is enumerated together with horns of other animals, such as wild cows, bulls and aurochs,
suggesting that (ḫ)aigallu indicates an animal as well. If this suggestion is accepted, then the object ḳarnu
ša ḫaigallatḫe is to be interpreted either as a horn of the ḫaigallu animal or as a vessel in the shape of the
animal. Though the former interpretation cannot be totally excluded, it is the latter possibility with the
conventional translation “rhyton” that has won more popularity due to the way these objects are described
in the text.
In HSS 14 105 each rhyton is described in terms of its parts, and the material of each part is
specified in the following fashion:
1 ḳarnu ša ḫaigallatḫe “One ḫaigallu-shaped rhyton —
tešašu ša šinni u ša išî its tešu is of ivory and ebony
u sakkašu … ša ḫurāṣi and its sakku … is of gold,
ukurašu ša išî its ukuru is of ebony,
u ḳaḳḳassu ša terikkunni and its head is of terikkunnu-material” (HSS 14 105:23-26)

The lexemes designating the various elements of the rhyton can be divided into three groups: (1)
those with transparent meaning, (2) those with disputable meaning, and (3) those with unknown meaning.
To (1) belong sag.du “head” (l. 10, 11, 16, 26), urʾudu “throat” (l. 3, 13, 17, 22, 29, 31), murub₄ “waist,
middle” (l. 25, 31), giri₃meš “feet” (l. 27) and uznā “ears” (l. 27). Furthermore, here also belongs rittu “palm
of the hand” used for the description of rhyta in EA 25. To group (2) I would attribute the word spelled as
pu-uz-za-šu (l. 26). In CAD P 549 it is subsumed under pūtu “forehead”, but the correct form would in this
case be *pūssu “its forehead”, while pūssašu can only be a form with the enclitic pronoun attached twice.
Since I am not aware of other such serious grammar mistakes in the Nuzi corpus, I am reluctant to follow
the interpretation of CAD despite its semantic attractiveness. Finally, group (3) is comprised of tešu (l. 9,
14, 20, 23, 24, 30, 33), ukuru (l. 2, 6, 10, 12, 15, 21, 25) and zakku (l. 2, 20, 24). Admittedly, certain
suggestions also exist for these words; von Soden tentatively subsumed the Nuzi attestation of tešu under
tišû “one ninth” (AHw 1362), but this translation makes no sense in the context and was rightfully
abandoned in CAD T 375, where tešu appears as a separate lexeme of unclear meaning. As for ukuru, the
translation “body” in AHw 1406 is clearly only a contextual guess.
Now, it appears that all words in group (1), and possibly also those in group (2), are anatomical
terms. This fact supports the identification of ḳarnu ša ḫaigallatḫe as a vessel in the shape of an animal
(for argumentation see CAD A1 231) and it also serves as my starting point in offering a new interpretation
for two words in group (3). As the other descriptive terms for parts of rhyta are terms for body parts, it
stands to reason that ukuru and tešu are also terms for body parts. At the same time, I believe that the basis
for the interpretation of these lexemes should be sought not in Akkadian, but in Hurrian. Indeed, both words
can be identified with well-attested Hurrian anatomical terms: ugri “leg/foot” (LAROCHE 1980, 277,
RICHTER 2012, 483) and tiža “heart” (LAROCHE 1980, 266, RICHTER 2012, 462). In the case of uguru, this

– 21 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

identification is confirmed by the use of giri₃ “foot” in the text (l. 27). Though it is not certain whether u₂-
ku-ra-šu and giri₃meš-šu are simply syllabic and logographic spellings for the same word or if they represent
two different body parts, “leg” and “foot” respectively, the presence of giri₃ in the description of rhyta
clearly indicates that these vessels could have legs/feet. As for tešu, I confess I cannot state with certainty,
which element of the rhyton is designated as its “heart”, but “central part, main part” or “inner part” are
the most likely candidates.
Admittedly, the shape of both words as they appear in HSS 14 105 does not fully correspond to
their suggested Hurrian source lexemes. In the case of uguru the difference is easily elucidated by
postulation of an anaptyctic vowel in the Nuzi form. Anaptyctic, or epenthetic, vowels are frequent in
Hurrian, particularly for breaking up consonant clusters containing liquidae (WEGNER 2007, 52, fn. 59),
e.g. eġl- ~ eġel- “to save”, torbi ~ torubi “enemy”, faġri ~ faġar(i) “good” (KOGAN; KREBERNIK 2020,
P0204), to which the new example of ugri ~ uguri “leg/foot” can now be added. The vowel e in the base
of tešu, secured by unvarying spellings with the sign TE and by plene spellings of te-e-ši in l. 9, 20 and 24,
is more difficult to explain. The unmotivated variation e ~ i is observable in the base of several Hurrian
words (WEGNER 2007, 47), for example in ežave ~ ižave “the other side”, ḫenz- ~ ḫinz- “to (be)
oppress(ed)”, kešḫi ~ kišḫi “throne”, negri ~ nigri “bolt, barrier”. However, no variant *teža is so far
attested for tiža “heart”. The word can be spelled with TE in Boğazköy (ChS I/2 1 i 59, iv 17, ChS I/6 3 iii
5’, ChS I/8 247:4, 9), but there this is a peculiarity of the spelling system (GIORGIERI; WILHELM 1995, 42,
46, 50, 54), not of the lexeme in question. Perhaps, if my identification of tešu in Hurro-Akkadian with the
Hurrian tiža “heart” is accepted, the spelling in HSS 14 105 may serve as the first witness of the variant
teža for tiža.
Bibliography
KOGAN, L.E.; M. KREBERNIK 2020: Etymological dictionary of Akkadian. Volume 1: Roots beginning with P and B.
Boston/Berlin.
GIORGIERI, M.; G. WILHELM 1995: Privative Opposition im Syllabar der hurritischen Texte aus Boğazköy, in Owen
D.I., G. Wilhelm (eds.), Studies on the civilization and culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 7. Edith
Porada Memorial volume, 37-56. Bethesda.
LAROCHE, E. 1980: Glossaire de la langue hourrite. Paris.
RICHTER, T. 2012: Bibliographisches Glossar des Hurritischen. Wiesbaden.
WEGNER, E. 2007: Einführung in die hurritische Sprache (2., überarbeitete Auflage). Wiesbaden.
WILHELM, G. 1992: Hurritische Lexikographie und Grammatik: die hurritisch-hethitische Bilingue aus Boğazköy.
OrNS 61, 122-141.
Olga I. SĘK <olga.vinnichenko@uni-jena.de>
FSU Jena (GERMANY)

13) Der Schluß der Götterliste in TELL AHMAR 6 — In der spätluwischen Inschrift der großen
Wettergott-Stele von Ahmar/Qubbah (TELL AHMAR 6)1) folgt in § 2 auf eine ungewöhnlich lange Liste von
Götternamen erstens | ‟CAELUM”-ti-sa | ‟TERRA”-kwa/i+ra/i-ti-sa-ha = [tibasantis taškwarantis-ha],
also „Erde und Himmel“ mit dem personifizierenden Suffix -ant- (gemeinsames Prädikat ist ‚liebten‘).
Dann folgt zweitens | (DEUS)AVIS-ti-zi (DEUS)*30-tà-ti-zi, nach Petra Goedegebuure ein analoges
komplementäres Paar „Berge (und) Täler“2), allerdings ohne die üblichen Determinative MONS und
FLUMEN.REGIO, an deren Stelle DEUS tritt. Da schon die Anführung von Erde und Himmel nach
Götternamen in der Tradition der Götterlisten hethitischer Verträge steht, wo daneben regelmäßig auch
Berge und Flüsse erscheinen, ist das sehr plausibel. Im zweiten Fall liegt dann auch eine Personifikation
vor, und so wird das auch im ersten der Fall sein: nicht [watinzi], sondern [watantinzi] wie [habadantinzi].
Wenn AVIS für hethitisch wattai- ‚Vogel‘ steht3), ist eine Schreibung AVIS-ti für [watantinzi] analog zu
‟CAELUM”-ti-sa auch plausibel.
Drittens folgt als Abschluß nach Hawkins’ Lesung a-tá | ta-sa?-mi-zi DEUS-ní-zi, wobei er zu
dem fraglichen Zeichen bemerkt: „the sign -sa- is not clear on any of the photographs, but A. R. George in
his collation of the text has drawn a clear -sa-“ (S. 20). Da sollte man so etwas wie alle anderen Götter
annehmen, vergleiche in KARATEPE 1 § LXXII „des Himmels Donnergott, des Himmels Sonnengott und
Ijas und alle (anderen) Götter“, letzteres OMNIS.MI-zi-ha DEUS-ní-zi geschrieben4) und in KARKAMIŠ A

– 22 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

6 § 20 „vor dem Wettergott, dem Sonnengott und der Kubaba und jedem (anderen) Gott“, letzteres ta-ni-
mi-i-ha-a-wa/i DEUS-ni-i geschrieben5). Daher dürfte Hawkins’ Lesung in ta-ni!-mi-zi zu emendieren sein,
zumal das fragliche Zeichen nach dem Faksimile einem um 90° gedrehten ni gleicht. Das vorausgehende
a-tá = [anta] wird dem Anschluß dienen, siehe etwa die Inschriften des Uratamis6), wo in HAMA 1, 2 und
7 im Gegensatz zu 3 und 6 weitere Baubeteiligte mit [anta-ha-wa] angeschlossen werden: „und dazu Halpa-
Leute / das Land Nikimas / das Land Hamajaras“7).
Wir haben also: „Himmel und Erde, Berge (und) Täler, dazu alle (anderen) Götter“.
Anmerkungen
1. Hawkins 2006, 12. Für Auskünfte danke ich Zsolt Simon, Craig Melchert und Anna Bauer.
2. Goedegebuure 2019, 300 und 307.
3. Goedegebuure 2019, 297.
4. So in der Fassung Hu., Hawkins 2000, 58.
5. Hawkins 2000, 125.
6. Hawkins 2000, 413.
7. ‚Also, in addition‘ setzte Yakubovich 2002, 209 im Anschluß an Meriggi an. Auch hethitisch und palaisch
anta wurden analog verwendet (siehe Sasseville – Yakubovich 2018, 54f.). Zu einem möglichen keilschrift-luwischen
Beleg Melchert 1993, 18: in einer auch sonst belegten Folge von Adjektiven im Akk. Sg. c. geht da jedem ānta-tta
voraus.

Literatur
GOEDEGEBUURE, P. 2019: The Hieroglypic Luwian signs *128 (AVIS ‛bird’) = wax and *30 = HAPA. In: A. Süel (ed.),
Acts of the IXth International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, 08-14 September 2014, Vol. I. Çorum, 295-316.
HAWKINS, J. D. 2000: Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions I Inscriptions of the Iron Age. Berlin – New York.
HAWKINS, J. D. 2006: The Inscription. In: G. Bunnens – J. D. Hawkins – I. Leirens, Tell Ahmar II. A New Luwian Stele
and the Cult of the Storm-God at Til Barsib-Masuwari. Louvain – Paris – Dudley, 11-31.
MELCHERT, H. C. 1993: Cuneiform Luvian Lexicon (Lexica Anatolica 2). Chapel Hill, NC.
SASSEVILLE, D. – YAKUBOVICH, I. 2018 [2021]: Palaic Words for Domestic Anaimals and their Enclosures. Historische
Sprachforschung 131, 46-58.
YAKUBOVICH, I. S. 2002: Nugae Luvicae. In: V. Shevoroshkin – P. J. Sidwell (eds.), Anatolian Languages (AHL
Studies in the Science and History of Language 6). Canberra, 189-209.
Diether SCHÜRR <diether.schuerr@gmx.net>
Hanau (GERMANY)

14) Indo-Iranian Names of Gods in CTH 51* — In 1907 a very important treaty CTH 51 was discovered
in the Hittite royal archive in the city of Hattuša (in Hittite language: KUB 21.18 (+) KUB 26.34;
JANKOWSKI, WILHELM 2005: 113–121; MAYERHOFER 1974; DEVECCHI 2018; in Akkadian language: KBo
1.1, KBo 1.2, KUB 3.1 a-d+KBo 28.111+114 (+) 113). This was the treaty between the Hittite king
Šuppiluliuma I and Šattiwaza, the ruler of Mittani, which is dated to the 14th century BC (LAHE, SAZONOV
2018: 22; ID 2005; WILHELM 2005; WITSCHEL 2012: 201; OLDENBERG 1983: 24; VOLLKOMMER 1992:
583).
In 2018 Jaan Lahe and Vladimir Sazonov published a short note about CTH 51 and about the first
mention of Mitra in the text (LAHE, SAZONOV 2018; LAHE, SAZONOV 2020). In this new paper we are going
to reconstruct the main functions of all the deities mentioned in CTH 51 Rs. 54' – 58', based on names
from these texts that are known from other sources.
The part of CTH 51 we are going to analyze is attributed to the Mittanian ruler Šattiwaza,
šat˗ti˗ú˗a˗za, whose name is, most probably, a cognate with the Vedic word *sāti˗vāj́a-, “who achieved a
reward”. It is worth noting that the rulers of Mittani, as well as their political elite in general, were clearly
of Indo-Iranian origin (NISSEN 2012: 110–111, see also KUZ'MINA 2007). Therefore, their names have
meaning in the Vedic and Avestan languages. Other examples of such names are represented by Artatama
(Vedic: *ṛta-dhāman-, “whose abode is Ṛta”) or Tušratta (Vedic: *tveṣa-ratha-, “whose chariot is
vehement”) (NISSEN 2012: 110–111; LAHE, SAZONOV 2018: 23).

– 23 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

The document CTH 51 is a peace treaty concluded between the Hittite Empire and the state of
Mittani (see BECKMAN 1993; LAHE, SAZONOV 2020). Some kingdoms of the Late Bronze Age (1500–1150
BCE) were gigantic and very powerful—for example, not only the Hittite Empire and Mittani but also
Egypt and Kassite Babylonia. They realized that wars were threatening to destroy the entire universe as
they understood it, so they made peace treaties among themselves. In the text, at the conclusion of such a
peace treaty, the king of the Hittites and the king of the Mittanians called their gods to witness the treaty.
Of course, here in CTH 51, we can see that Šattiwaza (see ALTMAN 2005) no longer had the strong
international status of the previous Mittanian kings (see VON DASSOW 2022). Therefore, under him Mittani
was already weakened and had a kind of vassal status to the Hittites, dependent upon Šuppiluliuma. The
Hittite king bound Šattiwaza to him by marrying one of his daughters and providing him with the military
support of his son Šarri-Kušuḫ (Piyaššili), who ruled in Carchemish.
In the list of the gods (see LAMBERT 1985; ESPAK 2011) of the ruler of Mittani there are the names
of Akkadian gods, along with Hurrian, Syrian and Mittanian deities. We assume that the simultaneous
mention of Akkadian, Hurrian and Syrian deities in addition to purely Mittanian gods is intended to show
their equal functions. In other words, we claim that some parallels were assumed in the functions of
Akkadian, Hurrian, Syrian and Mittanian deities, and this therefore allows us to reconstruct the Mittanian
deities and their functions.
Here, we provide the text and translation (made by BECKMAN 1999: 47) of the part of CTH 51 that
mentions the gods:
Rs. 54' – 58'
d
U EN ša-me-e ù er-ṣe-ti d30 ù dUTU d30 URUKASKAL-na [A]N ù ⸢KI⸣-ti dU EN ku-ri-in-ni URUKa-ḫat dGÌR ša URUKùr-dá
d
U EN URUU-ḫu-šu-ma-an dÉ-a-LUGAL EN ḫa-sí-[s]í dA-nu dA-⸢an⸣-tu₄ dEN.LÍL ù dNIN.LÍL DINGIR.MEŠMi-it-ra-aš-ši-il
DINGIR.MEŠ
Ú-ru-wa-na-aš-ši-il₅ dIn-tar DINGIR.MEŠNa-ša-at-ti-ia-an-na ⸢d⸣KASKAL.KUR ša dŠa-ma-a[n]-mi-nu-ḫi dU EN
URU
Wa-aš-šug-ga-an-ni
d
U EN ga-ma-ri ša URUIr-ri-te dPa-ar-ta-ḫi URUŠu-ú-ta ⸢d⸣Na-bar-wi dŠu-ru-u-ḫi dA-šur MUL! dŠa-la dNIN.É.GAL
d
DAM.KI.NA dIš-ḫa-ra ḪUR.SAGmeš ù ÍDmeš DINGIRmešAN DINGIRmeš KI-ti (Transliteration by HPM 2023)
A rev. 54-58) the Storm-god, Lord of Heaven and Earth, the Moon-god and the Sun-god, the Moon-god of Harran,
heaven and earth, the Storm-god, Lord of the kurinnu of Kahat, the Deity of Herds of Kurta, the Storm-god, Lord of
Uhušuman, Ea-šarri, Lord of Wisdom, Anu, Antu, Enlil, Ninlil, the Mitra-gods, the Varuna-gods, Indra, the Nasatya-
gods, the underground watercourse(?), Šamanminuhi, the Storm-god, Lord of Waššukkanni, the Storm-god, Lord of
the Temple Platform(?) of Irrite, Partahi of Šuta, Nabarbi, Šuruhi, Ištar, Evening Star, Šala, Belet-ekalli, Damkina,
Išhara, the mountains and rivers, the deities of heaven, and the deities of earth.

Here, a mix of divine names from different languages is used. It starts with the Akkadian names:
“The god of the storm [dU], [and his main function:] the Lord of Heaven and Earth, the god of the moon
[d30] and the god of the sun [dUTU].” Hence, the Storm-god is assumed to be the most important of the
deities. His name in Akkadian/Sumerian is: dU. We then see two additional deities: the Moon-god and the
Sun-god with their Akkadian/Sumerian names. After this, we see the first specification: “the Moon-god of
Harran”. It most probably means that there was a temple of the Moon-god in the city of Harran (now in
Turkey). Then, again, we read the function of the highest deity, that is, of dU: “heaven and earth”. This is
not in Akkadian, but in Sumerian logograms: [A]N ù ⸢KI⸣-ti (see ESPAK 2018: 37–38). Then it continues
as follows: “The Storm-god [dU], Lord of kurinnu of [the temple of] Kahat, the Deity of the Herds of Kurta,
the Storm-god [dU], Lord of [the temple in] Uhušuman.” Most likely, there were temples devoted to a god
who was associated with the Akkadian Storm-god dU in the places mentioned above.
Then some new names follow: “[The god of water in Akkadian] Ea [dÉ-a], [and His main
function:] Master of wisdom (see more on Ea/Enki in ESPAK 2015), [the god of the sky in Akkadian,
Sumerian AN] Anu [dA-nu], [the goddess of the earth in Akkadian (Sumerian KI)] Antu [dA-⸢an⸣-tu₄ – she
is the divine consort of Anu], [the god which was associated with the air, storm (“raging storm”) and wind
in Akkadian/Sumerian, one of the most important gods of the Mesopotamian pantheon (patron of kingship)]
Ellil/Enlil [dEN.LÍL] (See more on Enlil in WANG 2011, BLACK; GREEN (2004: 76): “Although he is in one
text referred to as East Wind and North Wind, there is no evidence to connect the name Ellil with the
lila/lilû or desert wind demon”), [the goddess of the air and wind in Akkadian/Sumerian] Ninlil [dNIN.LÍL
– she is the divine consort of Enlil].”

– 24 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

Thus, we see the following hierarchy in the text at this step: (1) the Storm-god dU, who is the Lord
of Heaven and Earth (this attribute is given both in Akkadian and Sumerian logograms), and the Water-
god Ea [dÉ-a], who is the Master of wisdom; (2) the Moon-god d30 and the Sun-god dUTU; (3) the divine
couple of the Sky-god Anu [dA-nu] and the his consort Antu [dA-⸢an⸣-tu₄]; (4) the divine couple of the Air-
god Enlil [dEN.LÍL] and his consort Ninlil [dNIN.LÍL]. Consequently, we have only four groups of deities
which are very well known.
Then we read the Mittanian names, perhaps, of the same deities: “The Mitra-gods [Mi-it-ra,
Avestan: Miθra, Vedic: Mitrá (see LAHE 2019: 191–214), the Sun-god, but here Mithra is in the plural:
DINGIR.MEŠ
Mi-it-ra-aš-ši-il], the Varuna-gods [Ú-ru-wa-na, Avestan: Varun, Vedic: Váruṇa, the Water-god,
but again in the plural: DINGIR.MEŠÚ-ru-wa-na-aš-ši-il₅], Indra [In-tar, Avestan/Vedic: Indra, the Storm-
god], the Nasatya-gods [Na-ša-at-ti, Avestan: Nā̊ŋhaiθya, Vedic: Nā́satyā, the twin Sky-gods].”
Again, we see the four groups of deities, the same number as for the gods and goddesses with their
names in Sumerograms. We can guess the first parallel at once; this is Indra (EMELIANOV 2015), the god
of the storm who can be considered an analogue of the Akkadian Storm-god dU, the Lord of Heaven and
Earth, and Ea, the god of water. The name of Indra means “who possesses water” (in Sanskrit, índu is
‘drop’ or ‘water/soma’ and ra is ‘possessing’). He is not only the Vedic god of rain, but also the Vedic god
of rivers. Taking into account that Mitra/Mithra was later associated with the sun in the Avestan and Vedic
religions, we can assume that the Mitra-gods mean the divine couple of the Moon-god and the Sun-god.
The Varuna-gods are the divine couple of the Sky-deity Anu and his consort Antu. And the Nasatya-gods
are parallels of the divine couple of the Air-deity Enlil and his consort Ninlil.
Then the Syrian-Hurrian storm-gods and goddesses of the sky are listed at the end. The goddesses
are in the presence of their heavenly consorts:
Underground watercourse(?), Šamanminuḫi [the Hurrian deity, presumably, of the storm], the Storm-god
[dU], the Lord [of the temple in] Waššukkanni, the Storm-god [dU], the Lord of the Temple Platform(?) of
Irrite, Partaḫi [one of the Hurrian storm deities] of [the temple in] Šuta, Nabarbi [the Hurrian and Syrian
storm-goddess], Šuruḫḫe [one of the Hurrian storm-gods], Inanna [dA-šur MUL! – “star of Aššur” in
Sumerian, that is Inanna, the Sky-goddess], Šaluš [the Syrian Water-goddess], Bēlet-ekalli [dNIN.É.GAL –
“lady of palace”,1) the Sky-goddess in Akkadian, associated with Inanna], Damkina [dDAM.KI.NA – the
heavenly consort of the god Enki, the Water-god], Išḫara [the Syrian goddess, associated with Inanna], the
mountains and rivers, the deities of heaven, and the deities of earth [the Sumerian logograms: DINGIRmešAN
DINGIRmeš KI-ti].

In this fragment we see that some Syro-Hurrian gods are regarded in parallel with the Storm-god
[dU]: Šamanminuḫi (see KREBERNIK 2008), the Lord of the temple in Waššukkanni, the Lord of the Temple
Platform of Irrite, Partaḫi of the temple in Šuta, Nabarbi, Šuruḫḫe. Then several Syro-Hurrian goddesses
are regarded in parallel with Inanna: Šala (see OTTO 2008), Bēlet-ekalli, Damkina, Išḫara.
Summing up, the Akkadian names of the gods are complemented by the Avestan-Vedic names
and the Syro-Hurrian names of the gods and goddesses in parallel. So, dU (Storm-god) and Ea is Indra, the
Moon- and Sun-god are Mitra-gods (in plural) (LAHE, SAZONOV 2018: 23). The Sky-god and Sky-goddess
are Varuna-gods (in plural). The Air-god and Air-goddess are Nasatya-gods.
Thus, we find a marked difference between the Mittanian pantheon and the Avestan and Vedic
pantheons. First, Indra is considered the highest god (to some extent this is in the Vedic tradition but is
completely absent in the Avesta). Second, Mithras denote two luminaries (the sun and the moon
simultaneously). This is found neither in Avestism nor in Vedism. Third, Varunas designate the Sky-gods.
In Avestism, Varuna later became the Sky-god named Ahura Mazdā, but in the Vedic religion he is the
Water-god. Fourth, Nasatya-gods are considered one of the main deities of the Indo-Iranian pantheon of
the Mittanians, which is not typical of either the Avesta or the Vedas. Furthermore, in the Vedic religion,
Mitra, Varuna, and Nasatya-gods (Aśvin) are āditya (asura) and, among the Indo-Iranian deities mentioned
in CTH 51, only Indra is deva (Sanskrit: “god”). This means that the Mittanian pantheon precedes the
division of the gods of the Indo-Aryans into asuras and devas, as well as the Iranians into ahuras and
daevas. It can therefore be assumed that this is the pantheon of the Indo-Iranians, and as such much earlier
than the pantheon of the Ṛgveda and Avesta. Meanwhile, the most ancient fragments of the Ṛgveda are
dated by the Indologists not earlier than ca.1200 BC (see WITZEL 2019).

– 25 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

Notes
*We are thankful to Dr. Amar Annus, Dr. Peeter Espak and Dr. Joanna Töyräänvuori for critical remarks.
1. See BEHRENS 1998 on Ninegal.

References
ALTMAN, A. 2005. Šattiwaza's Declaration Reconsidered, in: A. Süel (ed.) V. Uluslarası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri. Çorum
02-08 Eylül 2002/Acts of the Vth International Congress of Hittitology. Çorum, September 02-08, 2002: 43-48.
BEHRENS, H. 1998. Die Ninegalla-Hymne: die Wohnungnahme Inannas in Nippur in altbabylonischer Zeit. FAOS 21. Stuttgart.
BECKMAN, G. 1993. Some Observations on the Šuppiluliuma-Šattiwaza Treaties, in M. E. Cohen et al. (eds.), The
Tablet and the Scroll. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, Bethesda.
BECKMAN, G. 1999. Hittite Diplomatic Texts. Second Edition, Society of Biblical Literature, WAWS, Atlanta, Georgia.
BLACK, J.; GREEN, A. 2004. Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary, London.
VON DASSOW, E. 2022. Mittani and Its Empire. In K. Radner, N. Moeller, and D. T. Potts (eds). OHANE III: From the
Hyksos to the Late Second Millennium BC, Oxford: 455-528.
DEVECCHI, E. 2018. Details That Make the Difference. The Akkadian Manuscripts of the ‘Šattiwaza Treaties.' WO 48, no. 1, 72-95.
EMELIANIOV, V. 2015. Indra and (N)indara of the Cuneiform Sources, in: Power and Speech: Mythology of the Social
and Sacred, Ninth Annual International Conference on Comparative Mythology, Program and
Abstracts, June 10-12, 2015, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Poland: 13-14.
ESPAK, P. 2011. Some Early Developments in Sumerian God-Lists and Pantheon, in: AOAT 390/1: 47-57.
ESPAK, P. 2015. The God Enki in Sumerian Royal Ideology and Mythology. Wiesbaden.
ESPAK, P. 2018. One Possible Interpretation of the Structure of the Early Sumerian Pantheon. Usuteaduslik Ajakiri 72/1: 29-33.
HPM 2023 (= HETHITOLOGIE PORTAL MAINZ). CTH 51.I, Editio ultima: Textus 2016-01-10 15:23:57.18 (last accessed
20.2.2023).
JANKOWSKI, B., WILHELM, G. (eds.) 2005. Staatsverträge, Herrscherinschriften und andere Dokumente zur politischen
Geschichte. TUAT NF 2. Gütersloh.
KREBERNIK, M. (2006-2008) Art. ‘Sam(a)nuha,’ RlA 11: 612.
KUZ'MINA, E. E. 2007. The Origin of the Indo-Iranians. Leiden, Boston.
LAHE, J., SAZONOV, V. 2018. Some Notes On the First Mention of Mitra in CTH 51. N.A.B.U. 2018/17.
LAHE, J. 2019. Mithras – Miθra – Mitra. Der römische Gott Mithras aus der Perspektive der vergleichenden
Religionsgeschichte (Kasion 3). Munich.
LAHE, J., SAZONOV, V. 2020. Mitras Erstbenennung in der Indoarischen Götterliste im Vertrag von Hattuša? In: Sazonov
V. et al (eds.). Cultural Crossroads in the Middle East. The Historical, Cultural and Political Legacy of
Intercultural Dialogue and Conflict from the Ancient Near East to the Present Day. Tartu: 80-86.
LAMBERT, W. G. 1985. A List of Gods’ Names Found at Mari. In: Durand J.-M. & Kupper J.-R. (eds.), Miscellanea
babylonica. Mélanges offerts à Maurice Birot, Paris: 181-190.
MAYERHOFFER, M. 1974, Die Arier im Vorderen Orient – ein Mythos? Vienna.
NISSEN, H. J. 2012, Geschichte Alt-Vorderasiens. Munich.
OLDENBERG, H. 1983. Die Religion des Veda. Stuttgart.
OTTO, A. 2008. Šāla. B. Archäologisch. RlA 11: 568-569.
WILHELM, G. 2005. Der Vertrag Suppiluliumas I. von Šattiwazza von Mitanni, in: B. Jankowski, G. Wilhelm (eds.).
Staatsverträge, Herrscherinschriften und andere Dokumente zur politischen Geschichte: 113-114.
WILHELM, G. 2005, Der Vertrag Šuppiluliumas I. von Ḫatti mit Šattiwazza von Mitanni. TUAT NF 2: 113-121.
WITSCHEL, Ch. 2013. Die Urspünge des Mithras-Kults. Orientalischer Gott oder westliche Neuschöpfung? – Imperium
der Götter. Isis. Mithras. Christus. Karlsruhe, Darmstadt: Badisches Landesmuseum, 201–210.
WITZEL, M. 2019. Beyond the Flight of the Falcon. In: Thapar, R. et al. (eds.). Which of Us are Aryans?: Rethinking
the Concept of Our Origins. New Delhi.
VOLLKOMMER, R. 1992, „Mithras.“ – Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae. VI.1: 583-626.
WANG, X. 2011. The Metamorphosis of Enlil in Early Mesopotamia. AOAT 385. Münster.
Andrew SCHUMANN <andrew.schumann@gmail.com>
Dept of Cognitive Science, University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszow (POLAND)
Vladimir SAZONOV <vladimir.sazonov@ut.ee>
Center for Oriental Studies, University of Tartu (ESTONIA)

15) Late Bronze and Iron Age Gedor/Gadara in Northwest Jordan — Recent evaluations of the results
of the excavations conducted at et-Tell, a site located east of the Sea of Galilee, opened a new outlook onto
the history of this region in the late 10th–8th centuries BCE. Most scholars identify et-Tell as the centre of
the Land of Geshur, a polity mentioned several times in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Deut 3:14; Josh 12:4–5;

– 26 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

13:11–13; 2 Sam 3:3; 13:37–38; 14:32; 15:8). The excavators of this large site (ca. 80 ha) dated Strata VI
and V to the second half of the 10th–late 8th centuries BCE, a span of more than 200 years. The remains
unearthed in these strata include (inter alia) a fortification system, a monumental four-chamber gate and a
palatial compound (Arav and Bernett 2000; Arav 2009; 2013). The date of Stratum VI is difficult to
establish because the amount of published pottery of this stratum is scant and a significant part of it is
mixed. However, recent studies of Stratum V demonstrated that the city flourished in the late 9th–late 8th
centuries BCE and was destroyed by Tiglath-pileser III in his 733/32 BCE campaign (Sergi and Kleiman
2018; Ilan 2019; Sergi 2019). Sergi and Kleiman further demonstrated that the site was poorly inhabited in
the late 10th–mid 9th century BCE and could not have been the centre of a prosperous city at that time.
Evidently, the archaeological and historical picture that the site’s excavators present should be revised
significantly.
The recent conclusions undermine my earlier reconstruction of Geshur’s name in one of
Shalmaneser III’s inscriptions (Na’aman 2002: 205–207; 2012: 92–94). The inscription, written on the
king’s statue, relates in detail Shalmaneser III’s campaign of his 21st year of reign (838 BCE) (Laessøe
1959; Grayson 1996: 79 lines 159b–162a; Yamada 2000a: 206–209; 200b 80). According to its account,
the king first led a campaign against Damascus, and then proceeded southward. In the city of Laruba, he
received the tribute of Ba‛il of [KU]R Z/G[i-x-(x)-r]a-a-a, and erected his statue in the city’s temple. As
et-Tell, the Kingdom of Geshur’s capital, was an unimportant town in Shalmaneser’s time, my restoration
of Geshur’s name in the inscription is unlikely. Another solution for the damaged toponym’s name must
be sought.
In an effort to restore the toponym’s name, I will first examine a few Late Bronze hieroglyphic
and cuneiform texts available for the study of the south of the Yarmuk River area, a region located in
northwest Transjordan. I then combine the conclusions drawn from these texts with those drawn from the
account of Shalmaneser III’s inscription. By examining this region in long-term historical perspectives (la
longue durée), I seek to demonstrate that for hundreds of years it was an entity whose centre was located
near the Decapolis city of Gadara and whose territory extended from south of Gadara up to the north of the
Yarmuk River region.
My point of departure is a few Ramesside inscriptions that Pharaoh Seti I (ca. 1290–1279 BCE)
erected in his kingdom. One battle scene is accompanied by an inscription stating, “Town of Qadōr in the
land of Hinuma” (see Kitchen 1993a: 11; 1993b: 19). The toponym Qadōr (qdr) is also mentioned in two
topographical lists of Seti I (Kitchen 1993a 23 No. 67; 26 No. 62). Wolfgang Helck (1971: 193) already
identified Q/Gadōr at the ancient Decapolis city of Gadara (near modern Umm Qais). Later, the excavators
of Tell Zirā‛a, a site located about 4.5 km. southwest of ancient Gadara, identified pre-Hellenistic Gadōr at
this site. They further observed that in the Hellenistic time, the name was shifted to the city established on
the nearby plateau, which since then and throughout the Roman and Byzantine periods was called by the
name Gadara (Dijkstra, Dijkstra and Vriezen 2005: 182–187; Häser Soennecken and Vieweger 2016:
123).1)
Support for the identification of Gadōr at Tell Zirā‛a comes from a second Seti I battle scene,
which is accompanied by the inscription, “city of Yeno‛am” (see Kitchen 1993a: 10–11; 1993b: 19).
Yeno‛am is identified at Tell esh-Shihab, a site located on the Yarmuk River, where a stele of Seti I was
discovered (for the identification, see Na’aman 1977).2) Thus, the two sites were probably conquered in the
course of Seti’s first campaign to the Beth-shean Valley and the southern Bashan region.
These conclusions should be applied to the discussion of letter EA 256.3) The letter was written
by Mut-Ba‛lu, King of Piḫilu, and sent to Yanhanu, the supreme Egyptian commissioner in the Land of
Canaan. In this letter, Mut-Ba‛lu defends himself against the accusation that he operated, in cooperation
with Ayyab, King of Ashtaroth, against the interests of Egypt in southern Syria. To answer the accusations,
he first swears that he did not meet Ayyab for two months, as at the time Ayyab had been leading a
campaign (ia-ar-bi-iṣ)4) directed against towns located west and southwest of his kingdom (EA 256 lines
10b–14). He then admits that he cooperated with Ayyab in his struggle against the rebels. His account of
the struggle (lines 15–23) might be translated thus: “Just ask Ben-Elima, just ask Takua, just ask Yišuya
that ever since (the robbery?) of the House of Šulum-Marduk (a-di iš-tu É ša mDI.dAMAR.UTU)5) I went

– 27 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

to the aid of Ashtaroth, when all the cities of KUR Ga-ri become hostile”. This statement is followed by
the list of the seven rebel towns and the two cities (Ḫayyunu and Yabilima) that the rebels captured.
Evidently, KUR Ga-ri was located between the kingdoms of Ashtaroth and Piḫilu; that is, in the
region south and possibly north of the Yarmuk River. Years ago, Benjamin Mazar (1961: 20) suggested to
‘correct’ the land’s name and render it Ga-<šu>-ri, “Geshur”. The Land of Geshur, however, is located
west of the Jordan River and does not fit the assumed land’s location in Transjordan. In light of the above
discussion, I posit that we should render the land’s name Ga-<du>-ri, “Gadōr”. The city of Gadōr (Tell
Zirā‛a), located between the two kingdoms of Piḫilu and Ashtaroth, in the Late Bronze Age was the urban
centre of this land and must have given its name to the entire region that surrounds it. Hence, the long list
of cities that follows the land of Gadōr’s name (lines 24–28) must be identified in this region.
Concerning the identification of the cities, since Clauss (1907: 5 and passim) correctly identified
the location of the Land of Gari in northwest Transjordan, many site identifications have been proposed
for these towns.6) Some of these sites are located in the assumed territory of the Land of Gadōr (i.e.,
Yabilima [Abila], Hayanu [‛Ain-Anab], Zarqu [Tell el-Fuḫḫār, near Tell ez-Zeraqōn]). The identification
of the rest is tentative and requires archaeological verification, which is not necessary for my discussion.
Shalmaneser III’s inscription, which relates the campaign in his 21st year of reign (838 BCE), was
presented above and requires only a short discussion. According to its account, after the conquest of the
four fortified cities of Damascus, Shalmaneser proceeded to [KU]R Z/G[i-x-(x)-r]a, whose king, Ba‛il,
submitted to him in the city of Laruba and paid him tribute. From this town, Shalmaneser must have
proceeded westward, arrived to the Phoenician coast, and received the tribute of Tyre, Sidon and Byblos
(Grayson 1996, 79 lines 159b–162a; Yamada 2000a: 206–209; 2000b: 80; Na’aman 2012: 92–94).
What was the name of Ba‛il’s kingdom? With all due caution, I suggest to restore it G[i-du-(ú)-
r]a; that is, Gedōr.7) The city of Gedōr (Tell Zirā‛a) was probably Ba‛il’s capital, but Shalmaneser did not
reach this southern place. Rather, he received the tribute at Laruba, a city possibly located near the Yarmuk
River, and erected his statue in the city’s temple. He then crossed the Jordan River and proceeded westward
toward the Phoenician coast.
In sum, I posit that the region south and possibly north of the Yarmuk River was called by the
name Gadōr/Gedōr in the Late Bronze and Iron Age. The centre of this region was located at Tell Zirā‛a,
which gave its name to the surrounding region. In the 9th century BCE, Gedōr was probably an independent
small polity governed by its own ruler. The extensive excavations held at Tell Zirā‛a uncovered a well-
fortified city that flourished in the Late Bronze and Iron II Age, which fits well its presentation as the
capital of the surrounding region for hundreds of years.8) In the Hellenistic period, the city moved to the
neighbouring plateau and was called Gadara. It reached its height after Pompeius ‘liberated’ it and added
Gadara to the ten autonomous cities (the Decapolis) that belonged to the Roman province of Syria.
Notes
1. For the replacement of the ancient name Gadara with the modern name Umm Qais, see Mershen and Knauf
1988.
2. For discussions of the Tell esh-Shihab stele, see Kitchen 1993a: 14; 1993b: 21–22; Wimmer 2008, with
earlier literature.
3. For translations and discussions of letter EA 256, see Albright 1943: 7–15; Moran 1992: 309–310; Liverani
1998: 124–125, with earlier literature; Rainey 2015: 1036–1039, 1572; Yoder and Lauinger 2023.
4. My rendering of line 14 follows that of Moran (1992: 309 and n. 2) and of Yoder and Lauinger 2023.
5. My rendering of line 20 follows that of Yoder and Lauinger 2023.
6. For the proposed identifications of the towns, see Albright 1943: 14–15; Mazar 1961: 18–20; Weippert 1971:
12 n. 28; Epstein 1993; Galil 1998: 375–376; Liverani 1998: 125 n. 55; Pakkala 2010: 160–166.
7. For the king’s name Ba‛il, possibly a hypocoristic, compare the name Mut-Ba‛lu of the king of Piḫilu in the
Amarna period.
8. For the results of the excavations, see Häser Soennecken and Vieweger 2016, with earlier literature.

Bibliography
ALBRIGHT, W.F 1943. Two Little Understood Amarna Letters from the Middle Jordan Valley, BASOR 89: 7–19.
ARAV, R. 2009. Final Report on Area A, Stratum V: The City Gate, in R. Arav and R.A. Freund (eds.), Bethsaida. A
City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee, vol. 4, Kirkville: 1–123.

– 28 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

ARAV, R. 2013. The Southernmost Aramean Kingdom, in A Berlejung and M.P. Streck (eds.), Arameans, Chaldeans,
and Arabs in Babylonia and Palestine in the First Millennium B.C. (LAOS 3), Wiesbaden: 1–29.
ARAV, R. and BERNETT, M. 2000. The bīt ḫilāni at Bethsaida: Its Place in Aramaean/Neo-Hittite and Israelite Palace
Architecture in the Iron Age II, IEJ 50: 47–81.
CLAUSS, H. 1907. Die Städte der El-Amarnabriefe und die Bibel, ZDPV 30: 1–78.
DIJKSTRA, J., DIJKSTRA, M. and VRIEZEN, K. 2005. The Gadar-Region-Project: Preliminary Report of the Sondage on
Tall Zar‛a (2001–2002) and the Identification of Late Bronze Age Gadara, ADAJ 49: 177–188.
EPSTEIN, C. 1993. The Cities of the Land of Garu-Geshur Mentioned in EA 256 Reconsidered, in M. Heltzer, A. Segal
and D. Kaufman (eds.), Studies in Archaeology and History of Ancient Israel in Honour of Moshe
Dothan, Haifa: 83–90 (Hebrew).
GALIL, G. 1998. Ashtaroth in the Amarna Period, IOS 17: 373–385.
GRAYSON, A.K. 1996. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC II (858–745 BC) (RIMA vol. 3), Toronto.
HÄSER, J., SOENNECKEN, K. and VIEWEGER, D. 2016. Tall Zirā‛a in northwest Jordan between Aram and Israel, in O.
Sergi, M. Oeming and I.J. de Hulster (eds.), In Search for Aram and Israel. Politics, Culture, and
Identity (ORA 20), Tübingen: 121–137.
HELCK, W. 1971. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (2nd revised ed.),
Wiesbaden.
ILAN, D. 2019. Iron Age II et-Tell/Bethsaida and Dan: A Tale of Two Gates, in F.M. Strickert and R.A. Freund (eds.),
A Festschrift in Honor of Rami Arav: And they came to Bethsaida … Newcastle upon Tyne: 111–131.
KITCHEN, K.A. 1993a. Ramesside Inscriptions Translated and Annotated. Translations. I: Ramesses I, Sethos I and
Contemporaries, Oxford 1993.
KITCHEN, K.A. 1993b. Ramesside Inscriptions Translated and Annotated. Notes and Comments. I: Ramesses I, Sethos
I and Contemporaries, Oxford 1993.
LAESSØE, J. 1959. A Statue of Shalmaneser III, from Nimrud, Iraq 21: 147–157.
LIVERANI, M. 1998: Le lettere di el-Amarna, vol. I–II (Testi del Vicino Oriente antico 2/3), Brescia.
MAZAR, B. 1961. Geshur and Maacah, JBL 80: 16–28.
MERSHEN, B. and KNAUF, E.A. 1988. From Ğader to Umm Qais, ZDPV 104: 128–145.
MORAN, W.M. 1992: The Amarna Letters, Baltimore and London.
NA’AMAN, N. 1977. Yeno‛am, Tel Aviv 4: 168–177.
NA’AMAN, N. 2002. In Search of Reality behind the Account of David’s Wars with Israel’ s Neighbours, IEJ 52: 200–224.
NA’AMAN, N. 2012. The Kingdom of Geshur in History and Memory, SJOT 26/1: 88–101.
PAKKALA, J. 2010. What Do We Know about Geshur? SJOT 24/2: 155–173.
RAINEY, A.F. 2015. The El-Amarna Correspondence: A New Edition of the Cuneiform Letters from the Site of El-
Amarna based on collations of all extant tablets (Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section 1: Ancient
Near East, volume 10), Leiden and Boston.
SERGI, O. 2019. The Memory of the Kingdom of Geshur in Biblical Literature, in A. Berlejung and A.M. Maeir (eds.),
Research on Israel and Aram. Autonomy, Independence and Related Issues. Proceedings of the
First Annual RIAB Center Conference, Leipzig, June 2016: Research on Israel and Aram in
Biblical Time I (ORA 34), Tübingen: 315–330.
SERGI, O. and KLEIMAN, A. 2018. The Kingdom of Geshur and the Expansion of Aram-Damascus into the Northern
Jordan Valley: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives, BASOR 379: 1–18.
WEIPPERT, M. 1971. The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine (Studies in Biblical Theology, Second Series
21), London.
WIMMER, S.J. 2008. Von Nubien bis Syrien: zur ramessidischen Stele von Tell eš-Šihâb, in F. Adrom, K and A.
Schlüter (eds.), Altägyptische Weltsichten. Akten des Symposiums zur historischen Topographie
und Toponymie Altägyptens vom 12.–14. Mai 2006 in München (AAT 68), Wiesbaden: 190–196.
YAMADA, S. 2000a. The Construction of the Assyrian Empire. A Historical Study of Shalmaneser III (859–824 BC)
Relating to His Campaigns to the West. CHANE 3, Leiden.
YAMADA, S. 2000b. Peter Hulin’s Hand Copies of Shalmaneser III’s Inscriptions, Iraq 62: 65–87.
YODER, T. and LAUINGER, J. The Amarna letters, http://oracc.org/contrib/amarna/corpus/ (uploaded on 30/1/2023).
Nadav NAʼAMAN <nnaaman@tauex.tau.ac.il>
Tel Aviv University (ISRAEL)

16) The Ancient Name of The Great Star List — The so-called Great Star List is a composition known
from several Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian sources. It explains the stars and constellations as well as
other terms vital for understanding texts that describe the sky. A first edition of the first 312 lines of the
reconstructed text of this list has been produced by Ulla Koch-Westenholz in 1995 (pp. 187–205 Appendix
B), skipping the fragmentary word lists that can be seen towards the end of the sources. Wayne Horowitz

– 29 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

and I are currently preparing a new edition of this star list with a thorough discussion and the publication
of newly identified Late Babylonian sources.
The ancient title of what we call The Great Star List has remained unknown, though. Wayne
Horowitz (2020) suggested recently in his article entitled “A New Source for the Great Star List, Its Ancient
Name, and Issues for Further Study”, reading mulSAG.ME.GAR = dŠUL.PA.È the title. This suggestion was
based on the fact that four Neo-Assyrian texts quote (DIŠ) mulSAG.ME.GAR dŠUL.PA.È(.[A?])1) as title of a
composition. Furthermore, this corresponds to traces of a cuneiform sign in line 1 of the Neo-Assyrian
tablet RC 0708, a new source for the Great Star List, published in photograph on CDLI (P388407; RC 0708
certainly joins the fragment published by Scheil 1927: 33, but the whereabouts of that fragment remain
unknown). These traces comprise “the head of a vertical stroke at the end of col. i 1” (Horowitz 2020: 74),
presumed to be the end of È. However, the evidence he presents for reading RC 0708 obv. 1 is not very
convincing.
In January 2020, Enrique Jiménez kindly informed Wayne and myself about another Late
Babylonian fragment (BM 35867) from the end of The Great Star List that he had identified in the British
Museum’s cuneiform collection, and he provided us with a photograph of this fragment. BM 35867
duplicates the word list known from another source of this composition. In July 2022, I went to see this
fragment at the British Museum, and have concluded that this new source gives clear evidence for the
ancient title of The Great Star List. It also confirms, contrary to the usual idea, that the word lists belong
to the composition. The first line of the colophon reads:

13’ [nis-ḫ]i mul[l]⸢SAG.ME.GAR dŠUL.PA⸣.È.⸢A ZAG ⸣.TIL.⸢LA⸣.B[I.ŠÈ]

“[Excer]pt from mul SAG.ME.GAR = dŠulpaea, (copied) unt[il] it[s] end.”
From this fragment we can now confirm the validity of the earlier suggestion of Wayne Horowitz, that the
ancient title of the Great Star List was mulSAG.ME.GAR = dŠUL.PA.È(.A)2).
Notes
1. In VAT 9427 rev. 18 (DIŠ dSAG.ME.GAR dŠUL.PA.È), now published by Hätinen 2020: 136–150, 164–169;
in the catch line of BM 42277 (iv 12: DIŠ mulSAG.ME.GAR dŠUL.PA.È.[A?]), which is source D for the series MUL.APIN,
for which see recently Hunger–Steele 2019: 111; and in two library records: K. 12000d l. 4’ ([…]2 dSAG.ME.GAR
d
ŠUL.PA. ⸢È⸣.[A?]), see Hunger–Steele 2019: 13, and Horowitz 2020: 77; 1880-07-19, 144 (+) 262 rev. iv 3’ (1 2
SAG.ME.GAR dŠUL.P[A.È.A]), for which see Parpola 1983: 15, SAA VII 49 and http://oracc.org/saao.
2. Perhaps the traces described by Wayne Horowitz for RC 0708 obv. 1 should rather be read […
d
ŠUL.PA.È].⸢A⸣.

Bibliography
HÄTINEN, A. 2020. “Fragmente des Kompendiums MUL.APIN und ein astrologisch-astronomischer-Kommentar aus
Assur”. Pp. 109–169 in: S. M. Maul (ed.), Assur Forschungen 2, Wiesbaden.
HOROWITZ, W. 2020. “A New Source for the Great Star List, Its Ancient Name, and Issues for Further Study”, JANES
34, 68–81.
HUNGER, H. and J. STEELE 2019. The Babylonian Astronomical Compendium MUL.APIN, London and New York.
KOCH-WESTENHOLZ, U. 1995. Mesopotamian Astrology, CNI Publications 19, Copenhagen.
SCHEIL, V. 1927. “Carptim”, RA 24, 31–43.
PARPOLA, S. 1983. “Assyrian Library Records”, JNES 42, 1–29.
SAA VII = State Archives of Assyria VII – Imperial Administrative Records Part I: Palace and Temple Administration,
ed. by F. M. Fales and J. N. Postgate, Helsinki 1992.
Jeanette C. FINCKE <jeanette.fincke@ori.uni-heidelberg.de>
Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, Leiden (THE NETHERLANDS)

17) BM 40750, šumma tirānu IV 31-43 — Eight omen tablets concerning distinguished features of a colon
(ŠÀ.NIGIN, tīrānu) form the second chapter of the series bārûtu (Koch 2015: 98–100). Tablet four of this
chapter is preserved only in fragments of which “hardly any have been published so far” (Koch 2015: 99).
According to Heeßel (2011: 176–177), the text of this fourth tablet can be reconstructed almost completely

– 30 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

from six sources, three each from Babylonia (A = BM 32305, B = BM 32607, F = BM 65447) and Nineveh
(C = K. 8272+Sm. 1276, D = K. 6483+Sm. 791, E = K. 3827). Since Heeßel focused on the similarities of
three Middle Babylonian omen tablets on the colon (X = MLC 2614 = BRM IV 15; Y = MLC 26155 =
BRM IV 16; Z = Bab 36400 = Pedersén 2005: Fig. 34) with the text of the fourth tablet of the series šumma
tīrānu, he provided an edition only of entries 34-68 of the canonical tablet including the colophons of the
available sources, and omitting the first 33 entries. This is extremely unfortunate, since all sources remain
unpublished; not even photographs are available on CDLI. When I identified another Late Babylonian
source from Babylonia in January 2022, I learned that another visit at the British Museum was necessary
to collate all sources concerned in order to restore the first three entries preserved on the new fragment.
BM 40750 (1881-04-28, 295) is a fragment from the lower right part of a tablet with text of entries
31-43 of šumma tīrānu tablet IV. The following score transliteration of these lines does not aim at
completeness of the sources (for these see the edition of Heeßel), but at restoring the text. The new fragment
will be labelled source G. I publish BM 40750 courtesy of the Trustees of The British Museum.
A BM 32305 (1876-11-17, 2034+2355); no provenance known; an almost complete tablet with the surface
largely rubbed off; collated; measurements: 82+ × 122.3(+) × 23.7 mm (width × height × thickness).
The tablet is dated to Artaxerxes 2/[x]/32.
E K. 3827; Nineveh; a fragment from the left edge of a tablet written in Neo-Assyrian ductus; collated;
measurements: 98.9+ × 43+ × 16.4+ mm.
F BM 65447 (1882-09-18, 5433); Sippar; the lower right part of a tablet written in Late Babylonian ductus;
collated; measurements: 57.3+ × 72+ × 29(+) mm.
G BM 40750 (1881-04-28, 295); measurements: 37.6+ × 34.6+ × 17.5(+) mm (width × height × thickness); see
figure 1; Jimjima (according to the BM register), i.e. from the southern part of Babylon; the lower
right part of a tablet written in Late Babylonian ductus.

31 A obv. 32 [BE É.GA]L ŠÀ.NIGIN ⸢15 u 150 ⸣ GE₆ GÁL [LU]GAL [

F obv. 8’-9’ [… ina] ⸢É⸣.GAL-šú ḪI.GAR.MEŠ -šú (9’) […]-uš
G obv. 1’ [ ] ⸢É.GAL -šú⸣ [
[If the palac]e of the colon is right and left dark, they will rebel against the king [in] his palace, […]..

G
32 A obv. 33 [BE É].⸢GAL⸣ ŠÀ.NIGIN ka-ar-šu-ma GE₆.MEŠ NUN x[
F obv. 10’ [… ]x u SAG.KAL.MEŠ-šú UR.BI ŠUB.MEŠ
G obv. 2’ [ SAG.KA]L.MEŠ-šú U[R.BI
[If the pa]lace of the colon is … and black, the prince, .[..]., and his official will fall together.

33 A obv. 34 [BE] ⸢É⸣.GAL ŠÀ.NIGIN še-tum ŠUB-át ⸢É.GAL NUN UD.MEŠ ÙRU É.GAL È ⸣ […]
F obv. 11’ [ ] ⸢ É ⸣.GAL NUN UD.MEŠ ÙRU É.GAL È
F obv. 12’ [ ] šá-niš DUMU LUGAL AD-šú i-bar-ma AŠ.TE DIB-bat
G obv. 3’ [ Ù]RU É.GAL È šá-⸢niš DUMU⸣ LUGAL AD-⸢šú ḪI.GAR⸣-á[r]
[If] the palace of the colon – a net is thrown (on it), they will stand guard (for) the palace of the prince (for
several) days, (but then) leave the palace; another (prediction says), the son of the king will rebel against him.

34 A obv. 35 [BE SA]G É.GAL ŠÀ.NIGIN ZI -ma UGU ⸢ ŠÀ.NIGIN U₅⸣ N[UN
F obv. 13’ [ ŠÀ.NIGI]N U₅ NUN KUR NU UR₅-tú ŠU-su KUR-ád
G obv. 4’ [ U]₅ ⸢ NUN ⸣ KUR NU UR₅-tú ŠU-su KUR-ád
[If the to]p of the palace of the colon is lifted up and sits above the colon, the prince will lay his hand on a country
that is not his.

35 A obv. 36 [BE SAG] É.GAL ŠÀ.NIGIN ZI-ma UGU 15 ŠÀ.NIGIN U[₅

E obv. 1’ BE SAG ⸢ É.GAL ⸣ ŠÀ.N[IGIN
F obv. 14’ [ 1]5 ŠÀ.NIGIN U₅ a-kal NAM.RA
G obv. 5’ [ U]₅ a-kal NAM.RA
If the top of the palace of the colon is lifted up and sits above the right colon, (it means) taking of booty.

– 31 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

36 A obv. 37 [BE SAG] É.GAL ŠÀ.NIGIN ZI]-ma UG[U 150 ŠÀ.NIGIN U[₅
E obv. 2’ BE SAG É.GAL ŠÀ.NI[GIN
F obv. 15’ [ UGU] 150 ŠÀ.NIGIN U₅ KAR-tu₄
G obv. 6’ [ U]₅ >ana< KAR-tu₄
If the top of the palace of the colo[n is lifted up] and sits above the left colon, (it means) plundering.

37 A (rest of the obverse is missing)

E obv. 3’ BE SAG É.GAL ŠÀ.NIGIN ZI-i[ḫ-ma UGU 15
F obv. 16’ [ UG]U 15 ŠÀ.NIGIN U₅ NUN KUR KÚR-šú TI-qé
G obv. 7’ [ U]₅ NUN KUR KÚR-šú TI-qé
If the top of the palace of the colon is torn o[ut and] sits [abo]ve the right colon, the prince of the country will
take the country of his enemy.

38 E rev. 1 BE SAG É.GAL ŠÀ.NIGIN ZI-iḫ-ma UGU 150 ŠÀ.NIGIN U₅ KÚR KUR NUN TI-qé
F obv. 17’ [ UG]U 150 ŠÀ.NIGIN U₅ KÚR KUR NUN TI-qé
G obv. 8’ [ U]₅ KÚR KUR NUN TI-qé
If the top of the palace of the colon is torn out and sits above the left colon, the enemy will take the country of
the prince.

39 E rev. 2 BE SAG É.GAL ŠÀ.NIGIN ZI-⸢iḫ⸣-ma ana EGIR ŠÀ.NIGIN ŠUB-ut NUN KUR-su BAL-su
F rev. 1 [ EGIR] ŠÀ.NIGIN ŠUB-ut NUN KUR-su BAL-su
G obv. 9’ [ ŠUB-u]t NUN KUR-su BAL-su
If the top of the palace of the colon is torn out and has fallen behind the colon, the country will rebel (against)
the prince.

– 32 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

40 E rev. 3 BE ina É.GAL ŠÀ.NIGIN di-ḫu nu-úr-ru-bu ŠUB-di ir-bu ana É.GAL KU₄-ub ú-lu SUR-an AN-e
F rev. 2 [ ] ŠUB-di ir-bu ana É.GAL KU₄-ub ú-lu SUR-an AN -e
G rev. 1 [ ir-bu ana] ⸢ É⸣.GAL KU₄-ba ú-lu SUR-an AN -e
If in the palace of the colon there is a very soft depression, income will enter the palace or it will rain.

41 E rev. 4 BE ina É.GAL ŠÀ.NIGIN di-ḫu BABBAR ŠUB-di ILLU DU -kám

F rev. 3 [ ] ILLU DU-kam
G rev. 2 [ I]LLU DU-kam
If in the palace of the colon there is a white depression, flood will come.

42 E rev. 5 BE ina É.GAL ŠÀ.NIGIN di-ḫu SA₅ ŠUB-di ŠÀ.ḪUL ŠUB-di IZI
F rev. 4 [ ] ŠÀ.ḪUL ŠUB-di IZI
G rev. 3 [ ŠÀ.ḪU]L ŠUB-dì IZI
If in the palace of the colon there is a red depression, (there will be) misery (and) lightning strike.

43 E rev. 6 [B]E ina É.GAL ŠÀ.NIGIN di-ḫu dan-nu ŠUB-di ŠÈG-nu ṭaḫ-du ILLU mat-qu DU-kam
F rev. 5 [ ] ŠÈG-nu ṭaḫ-du ILLU mat-qu DU-kam
G rev. 4 [ ] ⸢ ILLU mat-qu DU-kam⸣
If in the palace of the colon there is a strong depression, luxuriant rain (will fall), a comfortable (lit. sweet) flood
will come.

44 E rev. 7 [BE ina É.GAL] ⸢ ŠÀ.NIGIN di-ḫu SIG₇ ŠUB-di ÉRIN-ni A.MEŠ i-kal-lu⸣-[ú]
F rev. 6 [ ] ÉRIN-ni A.MEŠ i-kal-lu-ú
G rev. (remainder is missing)
If in the palace of the colon there is a yellow-green depression, my troops will be held back from water.

Bibliography
HEEßEL, Nils P. 2011. “‘Sieben Tafeln aus Sieben Städten'. Überlegungen zum Prozess der Serialisierung von Texten in
Babylonien in der zweiten Hälfte des zweiten Jahrtausends v. Chr.” Pp. 171–195 in: E. Cancik-Kirschbaum et
al. (eds.), Babylon: Wissenskultur in Orient und Okzident. Topoi Berlin Studies of the Ancient World I. Berlin.
KOCH, Ulla S. 2015. Mesopotamian Divination Texts: Conversing with Gods. Sources from the First Millennium BCE.
GMTR 7. Münster.
PEDERSÉN, Olof 2005. Archive und Bibliotheken in Babylon. Die Tontafeln der Grabung Robert Koldeweys 1899–
1917. ADOG 25. Saarbrücken.
Jeanette C. FINCKE <jeanette.fincke@ori.uni-heidelberg.de>

18) New Joins for the Reverse of Šumma izbu Tablet 4, Including a Reconstruction of Iqqur īpuš
§64 — The here presented fragment joins of Šumma izbu tablet 4 (for the most recent edition, see DE ZORZI
2014, 439ff.), whose identification was made possible primarily through the use of the eBL, close a long-
time gap in our knowledge of this tablet. Although not completing the restoration of the entire tablet, the
new material shows that most of the reverse (viz. 107-118) was concerned with menological omens, which
are likewise deemed to have been part of of Iqqur īpuš (see LABAT 1965, 132ff. §64). Even though such
intertextual relations (or relations due to the implementation of similar forerunners to both series in MB
time) are not uncommon—especially in the case of the terrestrial omen series Šumma ālu and partly also
the Diagnostic Handbook (Sakikkû)—it is the only instance in Šumma izbu so far that includes menological
material within the teratological or birth related omen material. And one may wonder if exactly this absence
of menological material might have led to the fact that some of the fragments under discussion have been
formerly attributed to the menological series Iqqur īpuš (cf. ibid. 132f. fn. 5). Thus, the new fragments will
contribute to the reconstruction of the only sparsely known §64 of Iqqur īpuš as well.
Another intertextual connection is suggested in section 66-97, which is concerned with birth pains,
the flow of amniotic fluid, and probably also the appearance of the new-born child. These topics are
strongly connected with the assumed content of the not yet attested tablets 38 and 39 of the Diagnostic
Handbook (cf. the overview of the expected topics in Schmidtchen 2021, 48-50 and LKU 126 (VAT

– 33 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

14587), which is considered to belong to tablet 38 in ibid. 640-643; these connections will be briefly
addressed in a forthcoming article of the present author concerning addenda and corrigenda for BAM 13).
The new identifications and joins belong to Ms. A of the most recent edition in DE ZORZI 2014,
439 (note the additional join with K. 6260 published in DE ZORZI 2021, 220ff.) The attribution of K. 10873
(A₃) is not fully certain but, due to content and layout, very likely. However, the supposed position on the
obverse may vary by one line above or (more likely) below.
Ms. published sources new joins
A₁ K. 3680 + K. 6790 + K. 8081 + (+)
K. 9791
A₂ K. 3963 + K. 6260 (+) K. 3322 + K. 7938 + K. 11029 + K. 11179 + K. 16011 + K. 17060
K. 8806 (see de Zorzi 2014, 454) (+) K. 9177 +? K. 13226 + K. 16904 (additional join: Zs. Földi, eBL)
+ K. 20322 (+?)
A₃ K. 10873 (+?)
A₄ K. 11825 (due to the form of the break at the lower right corner, a
sandwich-join with the reverse of A₁ is very likely)

The new text portions are marked in the following transliteration in bold letters. The previous entry
numbering of DE ZORZI 2014, 441-454 has been added in brackets beginning with the new fragments in
entry 82.
Entry Transliteration Translation
obverse
59 A₂ obv. ₉ [BAD MUNUS].LU[GAL Ù.TU-ma] ⸢6⸣ [If the qu]een [gives birth and] (the child has) six
U.MEŠ GÌR-šú šá 15 KÚR dan-nu ana KUR ZI- toes on his right foot: a strong enemy will arise
am KUR i-da-[aš] against the land and he will cru[sh] the land.

– 34 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)
60 A₂ obv. 1₀ [BAD MUNUS].LUGA[L Ù.TU-ma] ⸢6⸣
U.MEŠ GÌR-šú šá 150 É AD-šú SUMUN-b[ar]
61 A₂ obv. 11f. [BAD] ⸢MUNUS⸣.LUGA[L Ù.TU-ma]
⸢6⸣-TA.ÀM ŠU.SI.MEŠ ŠUII-šú u GÌRII-šú
{MIN?} šá 15 u 1[50] | [x]-TA.ÀM [x x (x x)]
LUGAL : NUN KUR KÚR-šú šá NU ZU ŠU-su
KU[R]
62 A₂ obv. 1₃ [BA]D lúTUR š[á!? x x (x)] MUNUS
Ù.TU ḪUL AD-šú ma-mit DAB-bat
63 A₂ obv. 1₄ [BAD] lúTUR ⸢še?⸣-p[a-nu-šú? NIT]A?
Ù.TU AD-šú BAD₄ DAB-bat
64 A₂ obv 1₅ [BAD] lúTUR ⸢pa-nu-šu?⸣ [(x) ḫ]i?
(blank) ana EGIR u₄-me ina-an-ziq
65 A₂ obv 1₆ [BAD] lúTUR pa-nu-⸢šu⸣ [(x) MU]NUS
(blank) ana EGIR u₄-me i-šár-rù
66 A₂ obv 1₇ [BAD MUNU]S? ⸢ina⸣ ÍD ḫi-lu-šá
T[UK/i[b?-x]-⸢ši⸣ MU šá ṣi-it ŠÀ-šá NU SI.SÁ
67 A₂ obv 1₈ [BAD MUNUS ina?] ⸢ÍD⸣ MÚD-šá
⸢BI⸣.[IZ?-š]i? ta-di-ra-tu-šá NU KUR.MEŠ-ši
68 A₂ obv 1₉ [BAD MUNUS in]a? ÍD ⸢ḫi-lu?-šá ú?⸣ [x
x (x)] si-ḫi-il-ti UZU GIG-aṣ
69 A₂ obv ₂₀ [BAD MUNUS in]a? ÍD A.MEŠ-šá x [x
(x)] x ú-šap-šaq
70 A₂ obv ₂1 [BAD MUNUS in]a? ÍD Ù.TU [(x x x)]
DUMU.MEŠ TUK-ši
71 A₂ obv ₂₂ [BAD MUNUS in]a? ÍD URU(-?)li is-sa
x [(x)] ⸢ú/ag?⸣ ís-sal-la-ʾ
72 A₂ obv ₂₃ [BAD MUN]US? A.MEŠ-šá 3
[UD].⸢ME⸣ DU-ku GE₆ IGI-šá IGI
73 A₂ obv ₂₄ [BAD MUN]US? A.MEŠ-šá 4 U[D.M]E
DU-ku TIL u₄-mi
74 A₂ obv ₂₅ [BAD MUN]US? A.MEŠ-šá 5 U[D.ME]
DU-ku NÍ-šá ⸢GU₇⸣
75 A₂ obv ₂₆ [BAD MUN]US? A.MEŠ-šá 6 UD.M[E
D]U-ku uq-ta-at-tar
76 A₂ obv ₂₇ [BAD MU]NUS? A.MEŠ-šá 7 UD.⸢ME⸣
[D]U-ku uq-ta-at-tar
77 A₂ obv ₂₈ [BAD MU]NUS? A.MEŠ-šá ina SILA
[DU?]-⸢ku⸣ GIG-aṣ
78 A₂ obv ₂₉ [BAD MUNUS] ina SILA ḫi-lu-šá iz/iṣ?-
ba-x [(x)-š]i? ana DAGAL É
79 A₂ obv ₃₀ [BAD MUNUS] ⸢ina⸣ SILA
EN.NUN.AN.ÚSAN ḫi-lu-šá [x x x (x)] NINDA
sad-ra GU₇
A₃ obv 1′ BAD [MUNUS ...]
– 35 –
[If the qu]een [gives birth and] (the child has) six
toes on his left foot: the house of his father will last
l[ong.]
[If the qu]een [gives birth and] there are six fingers
(and toes) on his hands and feet of the right and left
side, [x] ... [...: (...)] a king (var.) a prince of the land
will bring his hand (viz.: exerts influence) against an
unknown enemy.
[I]f an infant has been born ... [...] (as a) female:
misfortune; his father will be seized by an oath.
[If] an infant has been born fee[t first(?)] (as a)
m[ale(?):] his father will be seized by hardship.
[If] an infant (has been born?) head first [...:] he will
worry for the rest of (his) days.
[If] an infant (has been born?) head first [(as a)
fe]male(?): he will be rich for the rest of (his) days.
[If a wom]an, her labour pains se[ize(?) h]er in the
river: the name (viz.: the reputation) of (the child)
coming out of her womb will not be successful.
[If a woman,] her blood dri[pps (for) h]er(?) [in] the
river: her distress will not overwhelm her.
[If a woman,] ... her lab[our pai]ns(?) [i]n the river:
she will suffer (piercing) pain of the flesh.
[If a woman, ...] her amniotic fluid [i]n the river: she
will struggle.
[If a woman] gives birth [i]n the river [(...):] she will
have (several) children.
[If a woman] ...(?) [i]n the river of (or near) a city:
she will fall ill.
[If a wom]an, her amniotic fluid flows for three
[day]s: she will experience anger (lit.: blackness of
her face).
[If a wom]an, her amniotic fluid flows for four
d[ay]s: end of (her) days.
[If a wom]an, her amniotic fluid flows for five
d[ays:] she will consume (viz. hurt?) herself.
[If a wom]an, her amniotic fluid flows for six day[s:]
she will become dejected.
[If a wom]an, her amniotic fluid flows for seven
days: she will become dejected.
[If a woman,] her amniotic fluid [flow]s at the street:
she will have worries/fall ill(?).
[If a woman,] her labour pains lea[ve/seize he]r(?) at
the street: increase of the household.
If [a woman,] her labour pains [...] at the street
during the first night watch: she/he (viz. the child?)
will regularly consume food.
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

80 A₂ obv ₃1 [BAD MUNUS ina] SILA If a woman, her labour pains [... at] the street during
EN.NUN.MURUB₄.BA ḫi-lu-šá [x x x x (x x) the second night watch: [(...)] she/he (viz. the child?)
NIN]DA? pa-šá?-ḫi GU₇ will consume [foo]d(?) of “resting”.
A₃ obv ₂′ BAD MU[NUS ...]
81 A₂ obv ₃₂ [BAD? MUNUS? ina SILA] If a woman, [her] labour pains [... at] the street
⸢EN⸣.NUN.UD.ZAL.LE ḫi-lu-[šá x x x x (x x)] x during the last night watch: he/she will have [...]
TUK-ši
A₃ obv ₃′ BAD MUNUS ⸢x⸣ [...]
82 (-) A₂ obv ₃₃ [BAD x x (x x)] ⸢ú?⸣-šab [...] (x) ⸢nu?⸣ x If a woman [...] dwells/sits(?) [...] ... [...]
[(x)]
A₃ obv ₄′ BAD MUNUS ⸢x?⸣ [...]
83 A₂ obv ₃₄ [x x x (x x)] ⸢ziq/tin?⸣ ku/ki? [...] DINGIR If a woman [...] ... [...] he/she will be lucky (lit.: have
⸢TUK⸣-ši a god).
A₃ obv ₅′ BAD MUNUS ⸢x⸣ [...]
84 A₂ obv ₃₅ [...] TIL ⸢u₄⸣-mi If a woman dit[to ...] end of days.
A₃ obv ₆′ BAD MUNUS ⸢KI⸣.[MIN ...]
85 A₂ obv ₃₆ [...] iq!-ta-na-a-a-⸢al⸣ If a woman ditto [...] he/she will keep being
A₃ obv ₇′ BAD MUNUS KI.MIN [...] (sorrowfully) silent.
86 A₂ obv ₃₇ [...] ḪUL-šá KUD If a woman ditto [...] her misfortune (or: evil) has
A₃ obv ₈′ ⸢BAD MUNUS⸣ KI.MIN [...] been decided.
87 A₂ obv ₃₈ [...] ḪUL-šá KUD [If a] woman dies/blood(?) [...] her misfortune (or:
A₃ obv ₉′ [BAD] ⸢MUNUS⸣ ÚŠ [...] evil) has been decided.
88 A₂ obv ₃₉ [... ŠÀ].⸢SÈ⸣.SÈ.KE-šá KUR-ád [If a wom]an [...] she will achieve her [undert]aking.
A₃ obv 1₀′ [BAD MU]NUS ⸢x⸣ [...]
89 A₂ obv ₄₀ [... b]ad/t]i? GUN GAR-šú [If ...] ...: a toll is established for him.
90 A₂ obv ₄1 [...] EN É.BI GAR-šú [If ...] of the household’s lord is established for him.
91 A₂ obv ₄₂ [...] ⸢ÚŠ?⸣.MEŠ É NA [If ...] (there will be) fatalities(?) (in?) the household
of the man.
92 A₂ obv ₄₃ [...] ḪUL-šá KUD-si [If ...] her misfortune (or: evil) has been decided for
her.
reverse
93 A₂ rev 1 [BAD MUNUS Ù.TU-ma UZU(.MEŠ)- [If a woman gives birth and (the child,) his flesh] is
šú?] tar-ku uq-ta-at-tar dark: he/she(?) will become dejected.
94 A₂ rev ₂ [BAD MUNUS Ù.TU-ma UZU(.MEŠ)- [If a woman gives birth and (the child,) his flesh] is
šú?] SIG₇ TIL u₄-mi yellow: end of days.
95 A₂ rev ₃ [BAD MUNUS Ù.TU-ma UZU(.MEŠ)- [If a woman gives birth and (the child,) its flesh] is
šú?] SA₅ NÍ-šá GU₇ red: she will consume (viz. hurt?) herself.
96 A₂ rev ₄ [...] si-ḫi-il-ti UZU [If ...] (piercing) pain of the flesh.
97 A₂ rev ₅f. [...] NÍG?-ša TAG₄-ši | [... i?]-zi-im-ta-šú [If ...] her property(?) will leave her; [...] he will
KUR-ád achieve his [w]ish.
A₃ rev 1′f. [BAD] MUNUS [...] | (blank) [...]

98 A₂ rev ₇ [...] TUK ni-ši/ì-lì? If a woman ... [...] obtaining of a (protective)

A₃ rev ₃′ BAD MUNUS n[i ...]
99 A₂ rev ₈ [...] {x x} <<ana?>> {x} TIL u₄-mi
A₃ rev ₄′ BAD MUNUS ni [...]
100 A₂ rev ₉ [...] ana qí-ta-a-a-ú-li GAR-šú
A₃ rev ₅′ [BA]D MUNUS ni ⸢x⸣ [...]
101 A₂ rev 1₀ [...] ana ḪA.LA GAR-šú
A₃ rev ₆′ [BAD] MUNUS ni ⸢id/du?⸣ [...]
102 A₂ rev 11 [...] ⸢ana⸣ ḪA.LA <GAR-šú?>
deity/oath(?).
If a woman ... [...] {erasure} end of days.
[I]f a woman ... [...] (sorrowful) silence (or: daze?)
is established for him.
[If] a woman ... [...] a share is established for him.

– 36 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)
A₃ rev ₇′ [BAD MU]NUS ni ⸢x⸣ [...]
103 A₂ rev 1₂ [...] TUK DIN[GIR?]
A₃ rev ₈′ [BAD MUN]US ni [...]
104 A₂ rev 1₃ [... š]á? ina-an-z[iq?]
A₃ rev ₉′ [BAD MUN]US n[i ...]
105 A₂ rev 1₄ [... š]á? NÍG.BI? ŠUB [x]
A₃ rev 1₀′ [BAD MUN]US n[i? ...]
106 A₂ rev 1₅f. [... (A) ÍD?] A TÚL A ḫi-ri-[ti] | [... n]a?-
mir-ma DU₈-[ár?]
107 A₂ rev 1₇-₂1 [DIŠ ina it]i⸢BÁRA⸣ TA UD 1.K[ÁM
(83′- EN UD 30.KÁM lúTUR lu ina ka]l u₄-mi lu ina
86′) kal GE₆ a-[lid] | [(blank?)] i-na GÌR-šú É [AD-
šú? BIR-aḫ? ... TU]K? ana ⸢EGIR⸣ u₄-me [x] |
[(blank?)] šum₄-ma IGI.MEŠ-šú [...] x x ⸢ina ṭù?-
ub? ŠÀ DU?⸣ | [(blank?)] ana EGIR u₄-m[i? ...] ⸢lu⸣
ina IZI | [(blank?)] ⸢lu⸣ ina ŠE lu ina S[ILA? ...
ana EGI]R? ⸢u₄⸣-mi É.BI BIR-aḫ
108 A₂ rev ₂₂-₂₇ [DIŠ ina iti]⸢GU₄⸣ TA [UD 1.KÁM EN
(86′- UD 30.KÁM lúTUR lu ina kal] ⸢u₄⸣-mi lu ina kal
91′) GE₆ a-lid | [(blank?) (x)] x GENN[A? x x x] x [x
x (x)] ⸢DU⸣-ak É AD-šú ú-šal-lam | [(blank?) x] x
[x x x (x)] x-šú x [x x] ana EGIR u₄-mi ŠÀ.BI
DU₁₀.GA | [(blank?) x] x [x (x) IGI.DU₈?].MEŠ?-
šú ⸢ud?⸣-d[u?-x x] ŠÀ.BI NU DU₁₀.GA | [(blank?)
x x x x] x ⸢ina ÍD?⸣ lu ina IZ[I? lu ina] ŠE? lu ina
⸢SILA?⸣ | [(blank?) x x x x] ⸢iš-ši⸣ GENNA BI
⸢SI⸣.SÁ AD-šú ina ŠÀ ḪUL DU.MEŠ
109 A₂ rev ₂₈-₃₂ [DIŠ ina itiSIG₄ TA UD 1.KÁ]M ⸢EN⸣
(92′- UD 30.KÁM lúTUR lu [ina?] ⸢kal u₄⸣-mi lu ina
96′) kal GE₆ a-⸢lid⸣ | [(blank?) x (x)] x x ⸢ana EGIR⸣
u₄-me NINDA sad-ra GU₇ ⸢x-ma?⸣
IGI.DU₈.MEŠ-šú ḪÚL.MEŠ-⸢šú⸣ LIBIR.⸢RA?⸣ |
[(blank?) x (x)] x ⸢ IGI⸣.DU₈.MEŠ-šú ud-du-⸢ru?⸣-
šú ŠÀ.BI NU ⸢DU₁₀.GA?⸣ | [(blank?) x (x)] x ⸢bi?⸣
šum₄-ma ina KI lu ina ÍD lu ⸢ina IZI⸣ lu ina
⸢ŠE⸣ lu ina [x] | [(blank?) x (x)] x ⸢iš⸣-ši GENNA
BI ana EGIR u₄-me ši-ḫat UZU ina ŠÀ ḪUL
DU.[MEŠ?]
– 37 –
[If a wom]an ... [...] a share <is established for
him(?)>.
[If a wom]an ... [...] obtaining of a (protective)
dei[ty.]
[If a wom]an ... [...] ... he/she will wor[ry.]
If a wom]an ... [...] ... his/her property(?) will
collapse/be rejected(?).
[If ... (the water of) a river(?),] the water of a well,
the water of a can[al, ... sh]ines(?) and he will be
relea[sed.]
[If in the mon]th Nisannu [a child] is b[orn] between
(lit.: from .. until) the first [and the thirtieth day
either during the whol]e day or during the whole
night: due to his influence (lit.: foot), the household
[of his father(?) will be scattered(?) ... will ha]ve(?)
[...]; for future days: [... (...)] if the ones seeing
him(?) (or: his face?) [...] he will live in
contentment; for future days: [... if she delivers (the
child?) ...] either at the fire(?) or at the grain(?) or at
the st[reet(?) ... for futu]re days: his household will
be scattered.
[If in the month] Ajjaru [a child] is born between
[the first and the thirtieth day either during the
whole] day or during the whole night: [(...) that(?)]
infan[t ...] will go/live in(?) [...]; the household of his
father will be in good condition; [...] his [...] ... [...
him(?):] for future days: he will be content (lit.: his
heart will be good); [...] his ... [...] he will not be
content; [if she delivers (the child?) either] at a river
or at the fir[e(?) or at] the grain(?) or at the street(?)
[...] that infant will be alright (but) his father will live
with an unhappy(?) heart.
[If in the month Simānu] a child is born [between the
first] and the thirtieth day either [during] the whole
day or during the whole night: [...] for future days he
will regularly consume food; [i]f(?) the ones seeing
him rejoice (because) of him: the will become
o[ld(?); ... if] the ones seeing him are fearful/in dark
mood (because) of him(?): he will not be content;
[...] ...; if she delivers (the child?) either at the earth
or at the river or at the fire(?) or at the grain(?) or at
[...] that infant, for future days (he will suffer)
wasting-away-of-flesh; he will live with an
unhappy(?) heart.
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)
110 A₂ rev ₃₃-₃₇ [DIŠ ina itiŠU UD 1.KÁM E]N UD
30.KÁM lúTUR lu ina kal u₄-⸢mi⸣ lu ina kal GE₆
[a-lid] | [(blank?) x x x x (x x)] x IGI.DU₈.MEŠ-
šú [...] ḪÚL.MEŠ-⸢šú⸣ x (x) [x x] | [(blank?) x x x
(x)] x kur/DU₈?.MEŠ x x x (x) ul ⸢SILIM⸣-im
šum₄-ma ⸢ina?⸣ x [lu] ⸢ina ÍD?⸣ | [(blank?) (x) lu
ina] IZI lu ina ŠE ⸢lu ina? x (x)⸣ ina DU [(x)] iš-
ši | [(blank?) (x) GENN]A BI ana EGIR u₄-me
ina ŠU NAM.T[AG? (x)] ⸢i?⸣-pa-šaḫ [ZI?].GA
sad-rat-su
111 A₂ rev ₃₈f. [DIŠ ina iti]NE TA UD 1.KÁM EN UD
30.KÁM lúTU[R lu ina kal u₄-mi l]u ina kal GE₆
a-lid | [(blank?) G]ENNA BI uq-ta-at-tar [...]
⸢me/igi?⸣ É.BI DAGAL
112 A₂ rev ₄₀ [DIŠ ina it]iKIN TA UD 1.KÁM EN UD
30.KÁM lúTUR lu i[na kal u₄-mi lu ina k]al GE₆
a-lid GENNA BI ⸢SIG₅⸣
113 A₂ rev ₄1f. [DIŠ ina i]tiDU₆ TA UD 1.KÁM EN UD
30.KÁM lúTU[R lu ina kal] u₄-mi lu ina kal GE₆
a-lid | (blank) GENNA BI SI.SÁ ana EGIR u₄-
me ŠÀ-šú? x [x x x (x)] SILA? DAGAL.LA iš-ši
ina BAD₅ ⸢È?⸣
114 A₂ rev ₄₃f. DIŠ ina itiAPIN TA UD 1.KÁM EN UD
30.KÁM lúT[UR lu ina k]al u₄-mi lu ina kal GE₆
[a-lid] | (blank) GENNA BI [É? AD?]-šú ú-š[al-
lam?]
115 A₂ rev ₄₅f. [DIŠ ina i]tiGA[N TA UD 1.KÁM] ⸢EN
UD⸣ [30.KÁM lúTUR lu ina] kal u₄-mi lu ina kal
G[E₆ a-lid] | [(blank)] G[ENNA? BI? ...] x (x)
⸢ú/kal?⸣ [x x (x)]
116 A₂ rev ₄₇f. [DIŠ ina itiAB TA UD 1.KÁM EN UD
30.KÁM lúTUR lu ina] ⸢kal⸣ ⸢u₄-mi⸣ [lu ina kal
GE₆ a-lid] | [(blank) GENNA? BI? ...] qa :?
GENNA ⸢BI⸣ ana ⸢EGIR⸣ [u₄-me x x x x (x x)]
117 A₂ rev ₄₉f. [DIŠ ina itiZÍZ] ⸢TA⸣ [UD 1.KÁM EN
UD 30.KÁM lúTUR] ⸢lu⸣ ina kal u₄-mi [lu ina
kal GE₆ a-lid] | [(blank)] GENNA B[I x x (x x)]
še? u GU[G(₄)? x x x x (x x)]
118 A₂ rev ₅1f. [DIŠ ina] ⸢iti⸣ŠE TA UD 1.K[ÁM EN
UD 30.KÁM lúTUR] lu ina kal u₄-mi lu ⸢ina kal
– 38 –
[If in the month Duʾūzu] a child [is born between the
first] and the thirtieth day either during the whole
day or during the whole night: [...] ... the ones seeing
him rejoice (because) of him [...] ... he will not be
alright; if she delivers (the child?) either at ... [or] at
the river [or at] the fire(?) or at the grain(?) or at ...
or while walking(?), [th]at infant, for future days he
will be released from the influence (lit.: hand) of an
oath; losses are regular for him.
[If in the month] Abu a child is born between the
first and the thirtieth day [either during the whole
day] or during the whole night: [th]at infant will
become dejected; [...] ... his household will expand.
[If in the mo]nth Elūlu a child is born between the
first and the thirtieth day either dur[ing the whole
day or during the wh]ole night: that infant will be
well.
[If in the mo]nth Tašrītu a child is born between the
first and the thirtieth day [either during the wh]ole
day or during the whole night: that infant will be
alright; for future days, his heart [... if(?)] she
delivers (the child?) [... at] the main street: he will
escape hardship.
If in the month Araḫsamna a chil[d is born] between
the first and the thirtieth day [either during the
wh]ole day or during the whole night: that infant,
[the house of] his [father(?)] will be in g[ood
condition.]
[If in the mo]nth Kis[līmu a child is born between
the first] an[d the thirtieth day either during] the
whole day or during the whole n[ight: that infa]nt
[...] ... [...]
[If in the month Ṭebētu a child is born between the
first and the thirtieth day either] during the whole
day [or during the whole night: that infant(?) ...] ...
(var.) that infant, for future [days ...]
[If in the month Šabāṭu a child is born] between [the
first and the thirtieth day] either during the whole
day [or during the whole night:] that infant, [...] ...
and h[unger(?) ...]
[If in the m]onth Addaru [a child is born] between
the first [and the thirtieth day] either during the
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

GE₆⸣ [a-lid] | (blank) GENNA BI ana E[GIR? u₄- whole day or during the whole night: that infant, for
mi/me DU/a-la-ku?] x sa-da-ru GAR-šú É.BI i- [future days(?)] continual [prosperity(?)] is
šal-[lim?] established for him; his household will be in good
cond[ition.]

119 A₂ rev ₅₃ [D]IŠ lúTUR ZÚ?.[MEŠ?-šú? x (x) [I]f a child, [his] tee[th(?) ... com]e out: scattering of
È?].MEŠ-ni BIR-aḫ É A[D-šú?] the fa[ther’s] household.
120 A₂ rev 54 [D]IŠ (blank) ina 4 ITI É [x x x x (x)] x [I]f <ditto(?)> in the fourth month: the house [...] the
É NA (blank) ka [x] household of the man(?) ... [...]
121 A₂ rev ₅₅ [D]IŠ (blank) ina 5 IT[I x x x (x) na]-zaq [I]f <ditto(?)> in the fifth mont[h: ... wo]rrying of
(blank) É [AD-šú?] the [father’s(?)] household.
122 A₂ rev ₅₆ DIŠ (blank) ina 6 IT[I x x x x (x) If <ditto(?)> in the sixth mont[h: ... w]ill be
SI]LIM?-im (blank) im [x] peaceful/in good condition(?), ... [...]
123 A₂ rev ₅₇ DIŠ (blank) ina 7 IZI [x x x x (x)] x ⸢BI?⸣ If <ditto(?)> in the seventh month: [...] that [...] will
is-sal-la-[ʾ] fall i[ll.]
124 A₂ rev ₅₈ DIŠ (blank) ina 8 ITI [...] x x x [x] If <ditto(?)> in the eighth month: [...] ... [...]
125 A₂ rev ₅₉ DIŠ (blank) ina 9 ITI [...] If <ditto(?)> in the ninth month: [...]
126 A₂ rev ₆₀ DIŠ (blank) ina 10 ITI [...] If <ditto(?)> in the tenth month: [...]
127 A₂ rev ₆1 DIŠ (blank) ina 11 ITI [...] If <ditto(?)> in the eleventh month: [...]
128 A₂ rev ₆₂ DIŠ (blank) ina 2 MU.A[N.NA ...] If <ditto(?)> in the second ye[ar ...]

catchline
A₂ rev ₆₃ BAD U₈ UR.MAḪ Ù.[TU If a sheep gives b[irth] to a lion: [laid down weapons
giš
TUKUL.MEŠ ŠUB.MEŠ ZI.MEŠ LUGAL will be raised; a king will have no rival.]
GABA.RI NU TUK-ši]
(blank space of ca. 3 lines)
rubric
A₂ rev ₆₄ DUB 4.KAM BAD MUNUS [a-rat (or: Tablet IV “If a woman [gives birth and ...”]
PEŠ₄)-ma ...]
A₄ 1′ [...] ⸢šà⸣ ŠÀ-šà i-bak-ki [... “...] her child (lit. that of her belly) cries”
(blank space of ca. 3 lines in both fragments)
colophon
A₂ rev ₆₅ KUR mAN.Š[ÁR-DÙ-A? MAN ŠÚ ...] Palace of Ass[urbanipal, king of the world ...]
A₄ ₂′ [...] MAN KUR AN.ŠÁRki [...] king of the land of Assur
(blank space of ca. 3 lines)

Notes
66: DE ZORZI 2014, 451 reads differently [š]i-mu-šá “i suoi b[eni]; la sua progenie non prospered”. However,
due to the spatial distribution, the sign IGI/ši might rather belong to the previous verbal form, probably being D[AB?-
š]i or i[b-x-š]i.
71: It is yet unclear what verb stands behind the broken instance is-sa-⸢x⸣-[(x)]-⸢ú?⸣). The preceding signs
URU (-)li might specify the aforementioned ÍD (“a river by/of a city”?).
72: The entry has the same wording as the incipit of Sakikkû tablet 38; cf. SCHMIDTCHEN 2021, 45 and 48f.
93-95: The tentative reconstruction of the protases follows VAT 14587 25′-26′ (LKU 126) 19′-21′; see
SCHMIDTCHEN 2021, 641.
98-105: The section seems to be concerned with a particular phenomenon (ni du? [...]) in connection with
giving or having given birth. A possible topic that comes to mind here is nīd libbi “foetus(?); throwing-off of womb
(viz. abortion)”, e.g. certain signs concerning the birth of a child or even a miscarriage. However, due to the damaged
state, the section remains uncertain for the time being.
106: This entry might actually refer to a NAM.BÚR.BI-ritual although it is not certain which exactly.
107: Cf. the abbreviated (and possibly partly corrupt) versions of this entry in STT I, 72 obv. 52-53 and STT
II, 251 obv. 17′-18′ according to which the broken section in the second line of the entry can be restored.
107 (84′): The form IGI.MEŠ-šú might belong to the same formulation as the still partly uncertain
IGI.DU₈.MEŠ-šú “his observers(?)” in the following entries.

– 39 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

108 (89′): The damaged verbal form might be the same as in 109 (94′) which resembles ud-du-⸢ru?⸣-šú (adāru
D stative plural) “(if the ones observing him) are fearful/in dark mood(?)”. The apodosis ŠÀ.BI NU DU₁₀.GA might
have been explained in the principal commentary on tablet 4 l. 39; see DE ZORZI 2014, 440.
119: Note the restoration by E. Leichty (1970, 72 referring to the OB entry YOS 10, 12). We may note,
however, the different apodosis in our entry, which is why the restoration and the reading of KA as KIR₄ “nose”
according to the OB sources mentioned above is rather uncertain. Furthermore, the end of the verbal form of the protasis
as preserved in our text suggests a plural subject, as for instance ZÚ.MEŠ-šú, maybe connected with the common
phenomenon of teething, which usually starts around six to eight months after having been born.

Bibliography
LABAT, R. 1965, Un calendrier babylonien des travaux, des signes et des mois. Series Iqqur ipus, Bibliothèque de
l‘École des hautes études, IVe section, Sciences historiques et philologiques 321, Paris.
LEICHTY, E. 1970, The Omen Series Šumma Izbu, TCS 4, Locust Valley.
SCHMIDTCHEN, E. 2021, Mesopotamische Diagnostik. Untersuchungen zu Rekonstruktion, Terminologie und
Systematik des babylonisch-assyrischen Diagnosehandbuches und eine Neubearbeitung der Tafeln
3–14, BAM 13, Berlin – Boston.
DE ZORZI, N. 2014, La serie teratomantica Šumma izbu: testo, tradizione, orizzonti culturali, 2 Vol., HANEM 15,
Padua.
DE ZORZI, N. 2021, “Ancient Mesopotamian divinatory series in the British Museum: New texts and joins”, in: JCS
73, p. 193-209.
Eric SCHMIDTCHEN <eric.schmidtchen@gmx.de>

19) The Šumma ālu Catalogue BM 35927 — So far, only five more or less reliably identifiable catalogue
texts for the enormous 1st millennium (BC) terrestrial omen series Šumma ālu ina mēlê šakin are known:
1. VAT 9438 + 10324 (obv.) (+) VAT 9775 (rev.) (the Assur Catalogue of Enūma Anu Enlil and Šumma ālu; = KAR
394 + KAR 407; WEIDNER 1936-1937, 360f. (translation of obv. and rev.); WEIDNER 1941-1944,
172f. (copy of the obv. between pp. 176 and 177); FREEDMAN 1998, 322f. (transliteration of col. ii
and iii); ROCHBERG 2018, 124-131 (edition of col. i-iv))
2. K. 9094b (the Nineveh Catalogue; FREEDMAN 1998, 324f.)
3. K. 6925 (BODDY, HUBER VULLIET and MITTERMAYER 2022, 80; the fragment has been likewise mentioned in BODDY
2021c, 2)
4. BM 68437 (the Sippar Catalogue; HEEßEL 2001-2002, 235f. (with a hand copy and an edition of its obv.))
5. W. 22706/2 (the Uruk Catalogue; see SpTU 3, no. 95; cf. also the new readings in BODDY, HUBER VULLIET and
MITTERMAYER 2022, 77-79; the status as catalogue text is not fully certain since the small tablet
shows incipits of only partly known incipits roughly covering content from the last half of Šumma
ālu until tablet “120” as well as entries that might represent rather sections than incipits)

Two additional catalogue-like fragments are left aside since they do not represent catalogues stricto sensu.
The first, K. 957 (FREEDMAN 1998, 326f.), represents rather an eclectic collection of the topics of Šumma
ālu tablets 11-36 and excerpts of the cat omens in tablet 45. The second fragment, Rm. 429 (BODDY and
MITTERMAYER 2021a, 352f.), lists excerpts of incipits from the section Šumma ālu T.80 to “T.120” (NZK)
which are only partly related to each other in terms of structure and content. Note likewise the possible
catalogue fragment K. 14273, whose layout is similar to K. 6925 mentioned in BODDY, HUBER VULLIET
and MITTERMAYER 2022, 79 fn.19.
These catalogues as well as differences in the series’ structure apparent in serial and excerpt tablets
suggest several redactions of Šumma ālu within the 1st millennium BC. If not indicated otherwise, the term
“standard redaction” refers here to the Nineveh redaction which is often, however, a reconstructed amalgam
of the structure displayed in the Assur Catalogue, the serial tablet’s structure from Nineveh and the Nabû-
zuqup-kēnu redaction (abbreviated NZK in the following) found in Nineveh and Nimrud (see FREEDMAN
1998, 17).
The fragment BM 35927 (Sp-III.463; LEICHTY, FINKEL and WALKER 2019, 306; cf. also the notes
on the registration numbers in ibid. 292 for the assumed origin in Babylon) represents yet another witness
of a Šumma ālu catalogue displaying a Babylonian recension (or redaction) from either Neo Babylonian or
even Late Babylonian time. Additionally, it offers the incipits of Šumma ālu sections that have been
formerly not or just fragmentarily preserved in other catalogue texts—viz. the beginning of the section on
bird omens (T.64-79 standard redaction) in column ii and a section of partly known tablets on behavioural

– 40 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

omens (T.80-“120?” standard redaction) in column iii that may or may not represent the section directly
following the bird omens. Column iv probably offers some overlaps with the so far poorly preserved
sections known from the forth column of the Assur Catalogue as well as col. iv of BM 68437. This section
might have represented additional material appended to the main series, similar to the aḫû material
appended at the end of the Enūma Anu Enlil catalogue in VAT 9438+ (HEEßEL 2001-2002, 235 incl. fn.
19-20).
According to the preserved layout and the distribution of the incipits, the tablet may have had four
columns, viz. two each side. It is thus unlikely that another catalogue section, as for instance the catalogue
on Enūma Anu Enlil in the Assur Catalogue, preceded the catalogue on Šumma ālu here. Although not
preserved on each line, the tablet shows line rulings as well as possibly more pronounced dividing rulings
in column iv. Similar to BM 68437, already the first column seems to list incipits of tablets attributable to
Šumma ālu. The preserved traces (five times the end of IGI-ir (innamir) “is/has been seen” and two times
possibly its plural innamrū, written IGI.MEŠ) suggest a slightly earlier position than the traces until the
end of column i in BM 68437 which most likely listed the incipits of Šumma ālu tablets 37-44. This might
situate our passage roughly around Tablets 25-30 although it is not clear if the sequence has been the same
as in the Assur Catalogue.
Note further that there is at least one ḫepi-gloss in column ii l. 9′ (and possibly in column ii l. 11′
as well) which might indicate that the catalogue actually represents a copy of an older original. It is thus
not to be excluded that the structure preserved therein likewise belongs to an older redaction.

fig. 1: BM 35927 obverse

fig. 2: BM 35927 reverse

– 41 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

Transliteration and Translation BM 35927 (Sp-III.463; 4,5 × 5 × 2,4cm)

obverse col. i
1'′
[... IGI-i]r? [If ...] is [se]en(?)
2'′
[... IGI-i]r? [If ...] is [se]en(?)
3'′
[... IGI-i]r? [If ...] is [se]en(?)
4'′
[...] ⸢ub/gir₃/az?⸣ [If ...] ...(?)
5'′
[... IG]I?.MEŠ [If ...] are [se]en(?)
6'′
[...] x ⸢IGI⸣-ir [If ...] is seen
7'′
[...] x ⸢NA⸣ IGI?-ir [If ... of] a man is seen(?)
8'′
[...] ⸢IGI?.MEŠ⸣ [If ...] are [se]en(?)
obverse col. ii
1'′
[DIŠ ina gišKIRI₆ ŠA₃ URU] ⸢gišGIŠIMMAR ina?⸣ [If in a garden amidst a city] a date palm [is split
S[AG.DU-ša₂? BAR-ma (...)] (beginning)] with [its he]ad [and (...)]
2'′
[DIŠ SAR.MEŠ m]a-a-du u₃ giš[ḪAB ma-gal SI.SA₂ [If vegetables are pl]entiful and the [hurātu-madder
(...)] prospers much (...)]
3'′
[DIŠ KI KUR?] (blank) UŠ₂ ⸢i?⸣-[ḫi-il?] [If the soil of the land exu]des [blood]
4'′
[DIŠ] ⸢ina iti?BARA₂⸣ A.ZI.(blank)G[A? DU-ma (...)] [If] the flood [comes] in Nisannu [and the river is red-
dyed like blood]
5'′
⸢DIŠ GI GE₆⸣ ina gišGI it-t[a-an?-mar] If black reed is se[en] in the cane brake [time and again]
6'′
DIŠ DARmušen ana E₂ NA K[U₄ ...] If a francolin en[ters] a man’s house [(...)]
7'′
DIŠ DARmušen ina UGU NA GU[B? ...] If a francolin si[ts] above a man [(...)]
8'′
DIŠ ⸢TI₈?⸣mušen.MEŠ ma-⸢gal⸣ i[m-te-du (...)] If eagles mu[ltiply (...)]
9'′ ḫe-pi₂
DIŠ NA ana (A₂).AŠ₂!(pa)-šu₂ ZI-ma If a man sets out for his break[endea]vour and a f[alcon(?)
? mušen
S[UR₂ .DU₃ ...] ...]
10'′
DIŠ ⸢ḫe-pi₂?(ERIM)⸣.NI ⸢KASKAL⸣ D[U-ma? (...)] If his break[army] g[oes(?)] on campaign [and (...)]
11'′
DIŠ ⸢NA?⸣ ana MUNUS (blank) x [...] If a man(?) [...] to a woman [...]
12'′
DIŠ ⸢TU⸣mušen ⸢ina SILA?⸣ ina UGU NA G[UB? ...] If a pigeon at the street s[its(?)] above a man [...]
13'′
DIŠ ⸢SUR₂?.DU₃mušen? BURU₅.ḪABRUD!.DA!?⸣mušen If a falcon(?) [...] a tadorna (or partridge) in ... [...]
ina m[u? ...]
14'′
DIŠ ⸢TU?mušen en/kab?⸣ x (blank) [...] If a pigeon(?) ... [...]
15'′
⸢DIŠ BURU₅.ḪABRUD⸣.DA BABBAR [ina URU If a white tadorna [is seen in a city]
IGI.DU₈?]
16'′
⸢DIŠ⸣ x (x) ⸢MEŠ⸣ ina ⸢E₂?⸣ x [...] [If ...] ... [are ...] in a [man’s(?)] house [...]
17'′
[DIŠ x (x)] x (x) [...] [If ...] ... [...]
reverse col. iii
1'′
[DIŠ] ⸢LU₂/LUGAL?⸣ [...] [If] a ma[n/k[ing(?) ...]
2'′
⸢DIŠ⸣ LUGAL KASKAL ⸢DAB-ma!?⸣ [...] If the king goes? on campaign (lit.: took a road) an[d ...]
3'′
DIŠ LUGAL SU NA [...] If the king [sees?] the body of a man [...]
4'′
DIŠ NA ina A₂.GU₂.Z[I.GA ina E₃-šu₂ NITA IGI (...)] If a man, while [going out the door] in the morn[ing,
sees a man]
5'′
DIŠ NA TUG₂!?(diš ma?) <NI₂>-šu₂ KUD-is!? x [...] If a man cuts off(?) his <own(?)> garment(!?) [...]
6'′
{DIŠ?}tukum-be₂ lu₂ ⸢u₃?⸣-[sa₂ i₃-du/gen (...)] If a ma[n lives(?) in depression/stupor (...)]
7'′
DIŠ NA ina+u₄-um ana DINGIR [ut-nen-nu (...)] If a man [prays] to a god during? the day [(...)]
8'′
DIŠ NA ana DINGIR i-kar-r[ab-ma (...)] If a man is pra[ying] to a god [and (...)]
9'′
DIŠ NA ina KI.ZA.ZA-[šu₂ (...)] If a man, while [he] is prostrating [...]
10'′
DIŠ NA ana E₂.GAL ina KU₄-šu₂ as-k[up/ku?-pa-tu₄? If a man [bumps his foot at the thr]eshold(?) while (his)
GIR₃-šu₂ ik-kip?] entering the palace
11'′
DIŠ NA ina KISLAḪ/KI.ŠUB!? (x) a x [...] If a man [...] in the threshing floor/undeveloped site(?)
[...]
12'′
DIŠ ⸢NA?⸣ (x) KI.NA₂-šu₂ 1[5 ṣa-lil? (...)] If a man(?), at his sleeping place [lies] on the rig[ht side
(...)]

– 42 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

13'′
DIŠ ⸢NA⸣ ina ⸢ṣa?-la?⸣-li-šu₂ ⸢ma/ba?⸣ [...] If a man, while he i[s slee]ping(?) ... [...]
14'′
[DIŠ x x (x)] ⸢ti?⸣ [(x)] d[u? ...] [If ...] ... [...]
15'′
[DIŠ x (x)] ⸢ina?⸣ DU [(x)] x [...] [If ...] while going/walking? [...]
16'′
[DIŠ x x (x) N]A₂/ḫi?-šu₂ x [...] [If ...] his ... [...]
17'′
[DIŠ ...] x [...] [If ...] ... [...]
reverse col. iv
1'′
[... IGI?]-⸢ir?⸣ [... is s]een(?)
2'′
[... u₂]-šap-pi [... he(?) s]ilences [...]

3'′
[... ina? a?-ša₂?]-bi-šu₂ [... while(?)] he sits/dwells(?)
4'′
[...] ⸢E₃⸣-ma [...] come(s) out(?) and

5'′
[... ŠU]B?.MEŠ [... f]all (pl.!)
6'′
[... T]A? 15-šu₂ ana 150-šu₂ SUR [...] flares up [fr]om his right to his left

7'′
[...] x KU₄ [...] enters(?)
8'′
[...] ⸢ta/x ud?⸣ [...] ...

9'′
[...] x [...] ...

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Enrique Jiménez for granting me access to the eBL-fragmentarium before having gone
online and which has been extremely useful in finding many of the references and unpublished fragments mentioned
in the notes below. Additionally, I am grateful to Nicla de Zorzi for helpful comments and suggestions.

Notes
The references in the following notes are not meant to be exhaustive or as a reconstruction of the Šumma ālu
tablets mentioned therein. They are rather intended to indicate already published material and established positions of
tablets within certain redactions as well as possible related or not yet positioned fragments of not or just fragmentarily
discernible parts of the series.
ii 1'′: T.58 standard redaction; FREEDMAN 2017, 111-123. The restoration of the incipit follows the wording
of the excerpt text K. 2851+ joined with the fragments K. 14196 (join: C. Mittermayer) + K. 16975 + K. 17240 (both
joins: E. Schmidtchen) which have been identified in the framework of the SNFS funded project “Edition of the Omen
Series Šumma Alu” (100011_175970; University of Geneva).
ii 2'′: T.59 standard redaction; FREEDMAN 2017, 124-132.
ii 3'′: T.60 standard redaction; FREEDMAN 2017, 133-140.
ii 4'′: T.61 standard redaction; FREEDMAN 2017, 141-155.
ii 5'′: T.62 standard redaction; FREEDMAN 2017, 156 (due to missing witnesses only the incipit is known so far).
ii 6'′: T.64? standard redaction; see the catchline in K. 8023+ (T.63?; cf. FREEDMAN 2017, 160 reading [DIŠ
A₂.MUŠ]EN instead) as well as incipit and catchline of K. 3240 and the variation in K. 19274. See also the possible
excerpt text Sm. 245 obv./rev.(?) 1 ([DIŠ DARmušen ana E₂ NA K]U₄ E₂ BI ŠA₃.BI NU DUG₃.GA : DAGA[L-iš]).
ii 7'′: T.65? standard redaction; cf. the note on ii 6′. See also the possible excerpt Sm. 245 obv./rev.(?) 8 ([DIŠ
mušen
DAR ina UGU NA?] GUB-iz mim-mu-šu ZAḪ₂ UK[U₂]). Cf. further the rubric of the commentary W. 22659
(SpTU 3, no. 99) l. 48 (ṣa-a-tu₂ šu-ut KA ša₂ DIŠ DARmušen ina UGU NA GUB-iz ša₂ KA um-man-nu) which is
followed by the same tablet as in our catalogue (cf. the note on the following entry).
ii 8'′: T.74? (NZK?); cf. the incipit in Sm. 1244 (DIŠ TI₈mušen.MEŠ ma-gal im-te-du URU BI LUGAL.MEŠ
uš-tab-⸢ba-ku⸣-šu₂ ⸢E₂⸣ [BI DAB-bat]). See also the excerpt K. 9127: 2′ and the catchline in BM 65538 rev. 8′
(Babylonian redaction), the catchline in the commentary W. 22659 (SpTU 3, no. 99) l. 47 (DIŠ TI₈mušen.MEŠ ma-gal
im-te-du) and the similar text YBC 16934 (var. beginning; iv 1′: DUB.<60?> 15.KAM.MA). Elements of this tablet
can also be found in the excerpt Sm. 1376 rev. (the obv. mentions omens from T.63? or an addition to T.62 concerning
aquatic animals) which might represent excerpts of its second half. Cf. also the similar incipit preserved in ND. 5427
(and thus the redaction of NZK?; CTN 4, no. 45 l. 1: DIŠ URU.⸢ḪUL⸣.Amušen.MEŠ ina ŠA₃ URU im-⸢te?-du?⸣ URU
⸢BI⸣ x [(x)]; cf. for the reading of the broken verb also the excerpt fragment K. 9818: 1); see the note on ii 13′.
ii 9'′: Cf. the catchline in K. 22253: 4′ [DIŠ NA ana A₂.AŠ₂-šu₂ ZI-ma ŠU]R₂.DU₃mušen ⸢TA 15⸣ [NA ana
150 NA i-ti-iq/DIB? A₂.AŠ₂-su KUR-ad]; see also the beginning of the MB forerunner BM 108874, cf. DE ZORZI 2009,
92 obv. 1 (DIŠ NA ana A₂.AŠ₂-šu₂ ZI-ma SUR₂.DU₃mušen TA 15 NA ana 150 NA i-ti-iq A₂.AŠ₂-su KUR-ad).

– 43 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

ii 10'′: T.67? standard redaction; cf. the incipit in K. 3892+ which represents, according to the catchline in
Rm. 2, 138 (tablet 66) rev. 8′ (DIŠ ERIM.NI KASKAL DU-ma UGAmušen IGI ERIM.NI GU₃.DE₂.DE₂ ERIM.NI
KASKAL DU-ku NU GUR-ra), the catchline of tablet 67 of the Nineveh-redaction. See further the same incipit attested
in the excerpt tablet K. 2898+. Due to the partly abraded surface, it is uncertain if the traces are to be read as either ⸢ḫe-
pi₂⸣ (cf. for instance the similar form in the line above) or ⸢ERIM⸣.
ii 11'′: The wording is similar to the beginning of the incipit of T.103 (DIŠ NA ana MUNUS GUB-za-at/u₂-
zu-uz-za-ta DU-ik; see Boddy 2021c, 2). Due to the position of the tablet and the different context, the here preserved
line is most likely a corrupt or abbreviated version of another incipit.
ii 12'′: Cf. the catchline in the excerpt Rm. II, 33: 4′ (DIŠ TUmušen ina SILA ina UGU N[A ...]) to a tablet
titled DIŠ SIMm[ušen ...].
ii 13'′: The reading follows a suggestion of Nicla de Zorzi (private communication) for which I am thankful.
Surprisingly, the Old Babylonian bird omen in Weisberg 1970, 92 (BM 113915 iv 1-7, here 1-4: šum-ma k[a-su-su | i-
na mu-uḫ-ḫu-[ur a-wi-lim] | iṣ-SU-ur ḫu-ri-im | iṣ-ba-at-ma i-ku-[ul] ...) resembles our instance the most although
similar omens are also attested in sources of the 1st millennium BC—see for example K. 3626+ rev. 4 and K. 4110 rev.
7 (both T.79 of the standard redaction; DIŠ SUR₂.DU₃mušen BURU₅.HABRUD.DAmušen IL₂-ma (...)) as well as K. 7061:
13′ (an excerpt on tablets 65? and 66; [DIŠ SUR₂.DU₃mušen BURU₅.HABRUD.D]A TI₈mušen.MEŠ DIŠ-niš im-me-[lil-
lu ...]) and Rm. 2, 138 obv. 3 (T.66 standard redaction). According to the traces, the reading BURU₅.ḪABRUD seems
very likely. The following DA, however, is less certain and might have been either squeezed in later or belongs to
traces of another sign.
ii 14'′: Cf. the similar entry K. 6801: 1 (DIŠ TUmušen ina um-mat na₄UR₅.UR₅ iq-nun ...), here maybe DIŠ
mušen
TU ina UR₅(ummat) [na₄UR₅.UR₅ (...).]
ii 15'′: Cf. the attestations in K. 12900: 1′, 10′; K. 6734 (exc.?) obv. 14′; Sm. 230 obv.(?) 1′—so far, the entry
seems not to be attested as incipit except for the excerpt fragment K. 13195: 1.
iii 2'′: Cf. the assumed beginning of T.79 standard redaction ([DIŠ LUGAL] ERIM-su u₂-paḫ-ḫi-ram-ma ana
KUR KUR₂-šu₂ ḫar-ra-na DAB-ma DU-ak) in LEICHTY and KIENAST 2003, 260. The spatial distribution in Rm. 2,
135 (Ms. b) suggests space for considerably more signs before [... ERI]M-su than just DIŠ LUGAL—maybe around
three to four additional signs, which would, together with the shared context of going on a campaign, certainly fit the
beginning of the catalogue entry (viz. DIŠ LUGAL KASKAL DAB?-ma [ERIM-su u₂-paḫ-ḫi-ram-ma ...). Cf. also the
similar sequence in the Uruk Catalogue obv. 14-15 (see BODDY, HUBER VULLIET and MITTERMAYER 2022, 77).
iii 3'′: Cf. the Uruk Catalogue obv. 15 (DIŠ LUGAL SU NA IGI (blank)). See also the similar entry in Rm.
136 (cf. also the duplicate Sm. 1423) 17′ (DIŠ NA SU.BI BARA₂ IGI.DU₈ BA[RA₂ ...] “If a man, the king sees his
body: The ki[ng ...]”) which, according to FREEDMAN 1998, 186f., represents T.11: 33′ but which might possibly have
been actually part of T.52.
iii 4'′: T.85 standard redaction; see Boddy 2021a.
iii 5'′: This line might perhaps be an abbreviated or corrupted variant of T.93 standard redaction (for the
identification cf. BODDY, HUBER VULLIET and MITTERMAYER 2022, 99); cf. the Uruk Catalogue rev. 4 (DIŠ NA TUG₂
NI₂-šu₂ ik-kis (blank); coll.) as well as the catalogue K. 6925: 3′ ([DIŠ] NA TUG₂ NI₂.⸢TE⸣ [...]).
iii 6'′: Cf. CTN 4, 51 (ND. 5436) which represents the NZK redaction in Nimrud that is followed by chariot
omens. The incipit reads as follows: tukum-be₂ lu₂ u₃-⸢sa₂?⸣-še₃ i₃-du/gen igi lu₂ x [...] (The bilingual omens are
currently in preparation by L. Saenz). See also the catchline of the same wording in Sm. 876. The relatively low number
of entries mentioned in the tally above the catchline suggests that the tablet does not belong to the garment tablet in
Nineveh. The chariot omens concerning the king (following ND. 5436) seem to have been partly integrated into tablet
43 in some traditions; cf. CT 40, pl. 35-37 as well as Freedman 2017, 17, 26-31 but they are not mentioned or preserved
in this section of the catalogue.
iii 7'′: T.96 (according to FREEDMAN 1998, 22) or T.91 standard redaction (according to the new
reconstruction of the tablet sequence in BODDY, HUBER VULLIET and MITTERMAYER 2022, 98f.); cf. the incipit in K.
12310: 1. It is also known to represent T.97 of the NZK redaction (cf. the catchline in the colophon of T.96 NZK in K.
9697, see HUBERT VUILLET and MITTERMAYER 2021b, 18).
iii 8'′: T.95 standard redaction and T. 96 NZK; see HUBERT VUILLET and MITTERMAYER 2021a and HUBERT
VUILLET and MITTERMAYER 2021b.
iii 9'′: For the possible position within the standard redaction as either T.92 (or even T.93) cf. HUBERT
VUILLET and MITTERMAYER 2021c, 2 and BODDY, HUBER VULLIET and MITTERMAYER 2022, 99.
iii 10'′: The entry is attested in varying form (i.e. only having E₂ “house(hold)” and not E₂.GAL “palace” as
in our case) in several excerpt texts (always as the first of the respective section or tablet); cf. 1879,0708.147 + K.
20251: 1 (join: F. Hubert Vuillet); W. 22307/22 obv. 1 (SpTU 1, no. 76); Sm. 1085 obv. 2′ ([...] x GIR₃-šu₂ ik-kip)
maybe followed by the end of the apodoses in 3′ ([...] x ul i-še₂₀-em-ma) and K. 19865 rev. 1-2) in close proximity
with material deemed belonging to T.91-T.93 of the standard redaction.
iii 11'′: If read correctly, the incipit might belong to T.87 standard redaction (DIŠ NA ina KISLAḪ ŠUB-ut
u₂-sur-tu₂ IGI-mar); see BODDY and MITTERMAYER 2021b, 3. However, the clear A after either KISLAḪ(KI-UD) is
conspicuous and the second sign after KI might likewise indicate the reading KI ŠUB!? (ašar/erṣeti? nidīti?). KI(.)ŠUB

– 44 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

reminds on the first entry of the passage T.61: 168-184 (DIŠ ina KI(-ti) ŠUB-ti ša₂ ID₂ ...), which is attested once as a
tablet separate from T.61 in Nineveh (cf. K.47+ and K. 116; see also FREEDMAN 2017, 151 colophon text A). It is thus,
although unusual, not entirely out of hand to assume an abbreviated version of that incipit as well.
iii 12'′: T.84 standard redaction. An edition of Šumma ālu T.84 is in preparation by R. Lerculeur within the
framework of the project “Edition of the Omen Series Šumma Alu” (University of Geneva). Cf. beneath others the
partly published Mss. and passages of the tablet for example in KÖCHER and OPPENHEIM 1957-1958, 73-75, 78 and pl.
5-9; CT 28, pl. 41 ; CT 37, pl. 45, 49 ; HEEßEL 2007, no. 31-32 ; GUINAN 1996, 9-10.
iii 13'′: The reading is not entirely certain. Cf. the similar wording in T.84: 26ff. (cf. parts of this passage
published from the excerpt K. 7075+ in KÖCHER and OPPENHEIM 1957-1958, 74 section 2 ll. 21-24). However, the sign
after -li-⸢šu₂?⸣ in our text looks hardly like SAG or KA but resembles MA. A further possible identification of this
incipit might be the alû-section in T.94: 71ff. (cf. BODDY 2021b, 19) likewise beginning DIŠ NA ina KI.NA₂-šu₂
U₁₈.LU is-ḫup-ma (...), which would than considered being a separate tablet in the Babylonian redaction. Note that the
section 71-81 has been separately added in the T.84 Ms. K. 7075+. The traces after -⸢šu₂⸣ would certainly fit the reading
⸢U₁₈⸣ but the verb ṣalālu “to lie down” (which is syllabically written in our catalogue and usually logographically
written NA₂) for KI.NA₂ is unusual. However, cf. the syllabic spelling i-na ṣa-la-li-šu in the possibly (late) Old
Babylonian text VAT 7525 (KÖCHER and OPPENHEIM 1957-1958, 64 col. i 39f., 41f., 43f. and col. ii 1) for what later
will become the introductory phrase ina KI.NA₂-šu₂ in Šumma ālu T.84: 9, 11, 12, 15 (cf. again KÖCHER and
OPPENHEIM 1957-1958, 74).
iii 15'′: Cf. maybe the incipit of T.85 NZK (DIŠ LU₂ SILA ina DU-šu₂ LU₂ DINGIR IL₂-ma ...); see BODDY
2021a, 12 (catchline).
iv 2'′: See similar T.84 NZK: 44 (DIŠ NA ana UR₃ AZU E₁₁-ma AZU u₂-šap-pi₂ S[A₅ DU₃-šu₂ NU SILIM]);
cf. MITTERMAYER 2021, 9f. See likewise K. 57 obv. 21 [...] x DU/GUB-ma AZU u₂-šap-pi SA₅ DU₃-šu₂ NU
SI<.SA₂?>; cf. copy and transliteration of the obv. (leaving out l. 21) in NOUGAYROL 1967, 35f. (with the different
reading u₂-šab pi-ṭir-us₂).
iv 3'′: Cf. perhaps the Assur Catalogue iv 7′ ([...] ina? DUR₂-šu₂). Note the similarities with Šumma ālu
T.“120” NZK (and the Ninevite and Babylonian procession omens): 1 (DIŠ dAMAR.UTU ina E₂.SAG.IL₂ i-na a-ša₂-
bi-šu zi-ir dEN.LIL₂ KUR.KUR ana HUL-tu₄ uš-ta-di); cf. HUBER VUILLET 2021a, 5; HUBER VUILLET 2021b, 2; HUBER
VUILLET 2021c, 2.
iv 4'′: Cf. the Assur Catalogue iv 8′ ([...] E₃-ma). Note the similarities in some beginning of sections in Šumma
ālu T.“120” NZK (and the Ninevite and Babylonian procession omens): 14 (DIŠ dAMAR.UTU ina E₂.SAG.IL₂ ina
SAG MU ina E₃-šu₂ KA-šu₂ pe-ti dEN.LIL₂ ez-zi-iš UGU KUR GU₃-si) and 50/80 (83-84) (DIŠ LUGAL ŠU DINGIR
DAB-ma lu ina E₃-šu₂ lu ina KU₄-šu₂ is-kil EME ḪUL-ti KI LUGAL šit-pat LUGAL a-a-bi-šu₂ KUR-ad₂); cf. HUBER
VUILLET 2021a, 8, 18 (entry 50); HUBER VUILLET 2021b, 5, 19 (entry 80); HUBER VUILLET 2021c, 4 (entry 14)
iv 5'′-6'′: These lines might refer to some celestial phenomenon, maybe similar to Šumma ālu T.106-107(?);
for l. 5′ cf. the catchline in K. 1455 (T.105) rev. 8 ([DIŠ MUL.MEŠ? i-t]a-at URU ŠUB.MEŠ-ni EN.NUN URU BAL-
it) and maybe the Assur Catalogue iv 23′ ([...] URU ŠUB.MEŠ)). For l. 6′ cf. K. 139 (the identification of T.106 and
possibly the likewise included T.107 is owed to Kaira Boddy, who is planning an edition of T.106-108 to be published
online via the Archive Ouverte of the University of Geneva; despite the broken beginning cf. ibid. rev. 19′ (T.107?:
DIŠ NA ana A₂.AŠ₂-šu₂ ZI-ma UL TA 15 NA ana GUB₃ NA SUR SIG₅), which is likewise similar to our instance iv
6′; see for the obverse of K. 139 also FINCKE 2013). However, since the wording is just similar and the beginnings
broken, the restorations remain uncertain for time being.

References
BODDY, K. and MITTERMAYER, C., 2021a, “Tablet 80 of the series Šumma ālu ina mēlê šakin”, Or NS 90, p. 350-374.
BODDY, K., HUBER VULLIET, F. and MITTERMAYER, C., 2022, “The Excerpt Tablets of Šumma ālu: Reconstructing
Tablets 80 to 95”, ZA 112/1, p. 76-106.
FINCKE, J. C., 2013, ““If A Star Changes into Ashes...” A Sequence of Unusual Celestial Omens”, Iraq 75, p. 171-196.
FREEDMAN, S. M., 1998, If a City is Set on a Height. The Akkadian Omen Series Šumma Alu ina Mēle Šakin. Volume
1: Tablets 1–21, OPSNKF 17.
FREEDMAN, S. M., 2017, If a City is Set on a Height. The Akkadian Omen Series Šumma Alu ina Mēle Šakin. Volume
3: Tablets 41–63, OPSNKF 20.
GUINAN, A., 1996, “Left/Right Symbolism in Mesopotamian Divination”, SAAB 10, p. 5-10.
HEEßEL, N. P., 2001-2002, review of: Sally M. Freedman, If a City is Set on a Height. The Akkadian Omen Series
Šumma Ālu ina Mēlê Šakin. Volume 1: Tablets 1–21, VIII + 361 S. Philadelphia, The University
of Pennsylvania Museum, 1998, publiziert 1999 (= OPSNKF 17), AfO 48/49, p. 232-241.
HEEßEL, N. P., 2007, Divinatorische Texte I: Terrestrische, teratologische, physiognomische und oneiromantische
Omina, KAL 1, WVDOG 116, 2007.
KOCH, U. S., 2015, Mesopotamian Divination Texts. Sources from the First Millennium BCE, GMTR 7.
KÖCHER, F. and OPPENHEIM, A. L., 1957-1958, “The Old-Babylonian Omen Text VAT 7525”, AfO 18, p. 62-77.
LEICHTY, E. and KIENAST, B., 2003, “Šumma Ālu LXXIX”, in: Selz, G. J. (ed.), Festschrift für Burkhart Kienast zu
seinem 70. Geburtstage dargebracht von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen, AOAT 274, 259-284.

– 45 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

LEICHTY, E., FINKEL, I. L. and WALKER, C. B. F., 2019, Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum.
Volumes IV-V, 10.
NOUGAYROL, J., 1967, “« Oiseau » ou oiseau?”, RA 61, p. 23-38.
ROCHBERG, F., 2018, “The Catalogues of Enūma Anu Enlil”, in: Steinert, U. (ed.) Assyrian and Babylonian Scholarly
Text Catalogues. Medicine, Magic and Divination, BAM 9, p. 121-136.
WEIDNER, E., 1936-1937, “Keilschrifttexte nach Kopien von T. G. Pinches”, AfO 11, p. 358-369.
WEIDNER, E., 1941-1944, “Die astrologische Serie Enûma Anu Enlil”, AfO 14, p. 308-318.
DE ZORZI, N., 2009, “Bird Divination in Mesopotamia: New Evidence from BM 108874”, Kaskal 6, p. 85-135.

Online References
BODDY, K., 2021a, Preliminary edition of Šumma ālu T.85, DOI: 10.13097/archive-ouverte/unige:151807
BODDY, K., 2021b, Preliminary edition of Šumma ālu T.94, DOI: 10.13097/archive-ouverte/unige:151805
BODDY, K., 2021c, Preliminary edition of Šumma ālu T.103, DOI: 10.13097/archive-ouverte/unige:152683
BODDY, K. and MITTERMAYER, C., 2021b, Preliminary edition of Šumma ālu T.87, DOI: 10.13097/archive-ouverte/unige:151414
HUBER VUILLET, F., 2021a, Preliminary edition of the Šumma ālu procession omens (Assyrian version), DOI: 10.13097/archive-
ouverte/unige:152871
HUBER VUILLET, F., 2021b, Preliminary edition of the Šumma ālu procession omens (Babylonian version), DOI: 10.13097/archive-
ouverte/unige:152872
HUBER VUILLET, F., 2021c, Preliminary edition of Nabû-zuqup-kēnu's T.120, DOI: 10.13097/archive-ouverte/unige:152870
HUBER VUILLET, F. and MITTERMAYER, C., 2021a, Preliminary edition of Šumma ālu T.95, DOI: 10.13097/archive-
ouverte/unige:151491
HUBER VUILLET, F. and MITTERMAYER, C., 2021b, Preliminary edition of Nabû-zuqup-kēnu's T.96(?), DOI: 10.13097/archive-
ouverte/unige:151492
HUBER VUILLET, F. and MITTERMAYER, C., 2021c, Preliminary edition of the Šumma ālu prostration omens on T.91or 92 (KI.ZA.ZA
section), DOI: 10.13097/archive-ouverte/unige:151493
MITTERMAYER, C., 2021 Preliminary edition of Nabû-zuqup-kēnu's T.84, DOI: 10.13097/archive-ouverte/unige:152685
Eric SCHMIDTCHEN <eric.schmidtchen@gmx.de>

20) Correction of the Copy of VAT 10113 (Schaudig, KAL 12, no. 3) — Annoyingly, I made a mistake
in the hand-copy of the ritual VAT 10113 in my edition from 2020 (KAL 12, p. 141, no. 3), which I am
about to correct here. I overlooked
the small vertical wedge at the
beginning of obv. II 2’, nestled into
the line rulings and into the long
strokes of (i-ra)-kas (I 4’), which it
slightly cuts. This wedge is clearly
visible in the photograph (KAL 12,
p. 189). It had already been
correctly copied in 1923 by Ebeling
(KAR II, no. 217). This single
wedge might seem to make only a
minor difference. It is, however,
proof that we are dealing with a
fragment of the obverse of the
tablet, with column I written prior
to column II. I had already argued
for this in KAL 12 (p. 27) for other
reasons which are now partly
outdated. The new reconstruction
means that the beginning of obv. II
2’ does not read: N[A₄.MEŠ …]
“st[ones …]” but: 1 N[A₄ dXY …]
“1 st[one (for) Deity XY …]”.

– 46 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

Bibliography
EBELING, E., 1923, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts II, WVDOG 34, Leipzig.
SCHAUDIG, H., 2020, Staatsrituale, Festbeschreibungen und weitere Texte zum assyrischen Kult, Keilschrifttexte aus
Assur literarischen Inhalts 12, WVDOG 158, Wiesbaden.
Hanspeter SCHAUDIG <hanspeter.schaudig@ori.uni-heidelberg.de>
Assyriologie, Heidelberg (GERMANY)

21) Die Besonderheiten der Distanzangabe Sargons II. — Laut den bibliographischen Angaben zu
RINAP 2 92 wurde die dort präsentierte Bauinschrift bereits 1870 als 3R 12 veröffentlicht und 1874
erstmals von Ménant in seinen Annales des rois d’Assyrie (Paris) übersetzt. Dennoch gehört die in diesem
Text befindliche chronologische Angabe, die Sargon II. anlässlich seines Neubaus des Nabu-Tempels zu
Ninive berechnen ließ, mit zu den am besten gehüteten Geheimnissen in der Welt der altorientalischen
Distanzangaben. Der Grund dafür liegt mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit darin, dass diese Angabe keine
Auswirkung auf die Chronologie der neuassyrischen Zeit oder gar auf die Chronologie Mesopotamiens hat.
Ihre bislang verborgen gebliebene Bedeutung liegt vielmehr in dem Grund, aus welchem diese
Distanzangabe überhaupt geschrieben wurde sowie in der Funktion, die ihr innerhalb der Entwicklung der
assyrischen Distanzangaben zukommt. Bevor ich meine diesbezüglichen Gedanken entwickele ist
allerdings ein caveat angebracht. Nach heutigem Stand ist die Distanzangabe Sargons II. die erste in
Assyrien seit dem Ende der mittelassyrischen Zeit. Diese Situation kann sich natürlich durch neue
Textfunde ändern. Da jedoch die relativ umfangreichen Textkorpora von Aššur-naṣir-pal II., Salmanassar
III. und Tiglath-pileser III. bislang keine Distanzangaben erbracht haben, gehe ich davon aus, dass
tatsächlich erst Sargon II. die Tradition dieser Datengruppe wieder aufgenommen hat.
Siehe RINAP 2, 35 für einen kurzen Überblick ober Sargons II. auf Ninive bezogene
Bauinschriften. Die hier interessierende findet sich auf einer Reihe von Tonknauffragmenten (RINAP 2
92, pp.390-92). Dort lesen wir (p. 392, Z. 4-7; Übersetzung G. Frame):
„The temple of the gods Nabû (and) Marduk that had previously been built opposite the new gate facing
north, became dilapidated and Adad-nārārī (III), son of Šamšī-Adad (V), king of Assyria [(…), a prince who pr]eceded
me, (re)built (it). The foundations of this temple were not made strong and its foundation wall was not fixed like
bedrock. Seventy-five years elapsed and it became old and dilapidated (lit.: “dilapidated and old”). In order not to
change its location (and) to build (it) beside the temple of the goddess Ištar of Nineveh, I requested the command of
the god Na[bû (…)], my lord, and by means of the diviner’s bowl he answered me with (his) firm approval not to
change its location.”
Bezogen auf assyrische Tempel hat Sargon damit die einzige genuin assyrische Distanzangabe
außerhalb der Stadt Aššur verfassen lassen. Sargon scheint selbst eine Begründung anzudeuten. Der Nabu-
Tempel liegt tatsächlich direkt nordwestlich des Ištar-Tempels. Für eine Bauphase dieses Tempels hatte
lange zuvor Šamšī-Adad I. eine Distanzangabe schreiben lassen. Somit befinden sich alle mit
Distanzangaben versehenen Tempel Assyriens in der Stadt Aššur sowie im Zentrum von Kujundschik.
In Šamšī-Adads Inschrift ist der Bezug auf Akkade ganz deutlich. Ihm zufolge wurde der
Vorgängerbau von Maništusu ausgeführt und seit dem Fall von Akkade seien 7 dāru (i.e. 420 Jahre) bis
zur Eroberung des Landes Nurrūgu durch Šamšī-Adad vergangen, in denen der Tempel nicht erneuert
wurde (vgl. Janssen 2015, 107; Janssen 2017, 45). Zudem ist Ištar natürlich als Hauptgöttin von Akkade
bekannt. Sie dankt laut der Inschrift Šamšī-Adad I. für den Wiederaufbau des Tempels mit einer
Verlängerung seiner Lebenszeit (RIMA 1, pp. 51-54).
Im Falle des Nabu-Tempels ist der Akkade-Bezug nicht ganz so deutlich. Er besteht zu einem
darin, dass Sargon den Ištar-Tempel ostentativ erwähnt, sowie im Namen Sargons II. Zudem hängt sich
dieser König bereits durch die Existenz seiner Distanzangabe an das Vorbild Šamšī-Adad I. an, und zwar
stärker, als man auf den ersten Blick glauben möchte.
Sargon II. (721-705) gibt die Zeitspanne von Adad-nārārī III. (810-783) bis zu irgendeinem seiner
eigenen Jahre mit 75 Jahren an. Das ist überraschend und aufschlussreich zugleich. In mittelassyrischer
Zeit hätte man die Regierungen beider Könige außen vor gelassen und nur die Zeit dazwischen (782-722)
berechnet (61 Jahre). Bei diesem Ergebnis hätte man für eine Abrundung sicherlich auch modernerseits

– 47 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

Verständnis gehabt. Doch Sargons Schreiber verzichtet darauf und scheint auf etwas anderes aus gewesen
zu sein.
Die von ihm angesetzten 75 Jahre hat er jedenfalls nicht mit dem Regierungsbeginn Adad-nārārīs
III. im Jahr 810 verknüpft, denn dann hätte Sargon seine eigene Regierung nicht erreicht. Wenn er, wie es
in Mesopotamien vor Nabonid üblich war, den älteren König aus der Distanzangabe ausgeschlossen hat,
dann endet die Angabe im Jahr 708 (incl.) und enthält die ersten 14 Regierungsjahre Sargons.
Mathematisch möglich, aber unwahrscheinlich ist, dass Sargon sich am tatsächlichen Datum der Erbauung
des älteren Tempels orientiert hätte. Die Eponymenliste verzeichnet für das 23. Jahr Adad-nārārīs III. (788)
die Gründung des Tempels und für das Folgejahr den Einzug des Gottes (Menzel 1981, 119). Menzel setzt
hier an und schlägt eine tentative Datierung des Tempels in die Jahre 716 oder 715 vor, da sie die Länge
der Distanzangabe mit nur 72 statt 75 Jahren beziffert. Bei Verwendung der von RINAP 2 angegebenen 75
Jahren endet Sargons Distanzangabe um 713. Ein solcher Einschnitt in die Regierungszeit des ältesten
Monarchen einer Distanzangabe ist für Assyrien jedoch nicht belegt und findet sich in babylonischen
Inschriften m.W. erst in der Zeit Nabonids (z.B. bei Adad-guppi, geboren in Assurbanipal 20, [vgl. RINBE
2, p. 225, i 29]). Somit dürfte bei Sargon II. eher die klassische Ansetzungsweise vorliegen und die Angabe
läuft vermutlich von Ende Adad-nārārī III. (excl.) bis Sargon 14 (incl.).
Nun zurück zu Šamšī-Adads Distanzangabe. Sie könnte der Grund gewesen sein, weshalb Sargon
auf die oben beschriebene mittelassyrische Ansetzungsform verzichtet. Sowohl Šamšī-Adad als auch
Sargon ziehen den Endpunkt der Angabe in ihre eigene Regierung hinein. So etwas gab es in
mittelassyrischer Zeit nicht, sollte für die Sargoniden aber schulbildend werden (s. Janssen 2017 [Sanherib
in Bavian]; Janssen 2016,82f. [Asarhaddon]; Janssen 2021 [Assurbanipal]). Da Šamšī-Adad seinen oberen
Fixpunkt (den Fall Akkades) aus der Distanzangabe ausschließt, hätte Sargon mit der wahrscheinlichen
Ausschließung Adad-nārārīs III. nicht nur der mesopotamischen Tradition Folge geleistet, sondern
gleichzeitig die Berechnungsweise von Šamšī-Adads Distanzangabe vollständig emuliert. Damit haben wir
ein weiteres Argument dafür gefunden, dass Sargons Angabe mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit von 782-708
(jeweils incl.) läuft.
Betrachtet man alles zusammen, so sehen wir im Zentrum von Kujundschik zwei Tempel, die als
einzige außerhalb Aššurs mit Distanzangaben versehen wurden und die nicht nur räumlich sondern auch
verbal zueinander in Beziehung gesetzt wurden. Die Idee, das Ende der Distanzangabe in die eigene
Regierungszeit zu verlegen, scheint Sargon direkt von Šamšī-Adad I. übernommen zu haben. Wir haben
also wohl im Zentrum von Kujundschik die Stein und Schrift gewordenen Zeugen einer kleinen translatio
imperii vorliegen: vom akkadischen Reich zum Königreich von Obermesopotamien und von dort zu
Assyrien, insbesondere zum neuassyrischen Staat.
Literatur
JANSSEN, Th., 2015: Das Zusammenspiel der Distanzangaben des Šamšī-Adad I und des Aemilius Sura, NABU
2015/67, 106-108.
JANSSEN, Th., 2016: „Wie man mit Hilfe der Distanzangaben die 1225 Jahre bei Eusebius erklärt und die Eklipse von
1838 BC als die ‚Sonnenverdunkelung‘ in MEC identifiziert“, Akkadica 137, 75-96.
JANSSEN, Th., 2017: Zur Verknüpfung mehrerer Fixpunkte der mesopotamischen Chronologie von 2200-1760, NABU
2017/23, 44-47.
JANSSEN, Th., 2017: „Zur Datierung von Sanheribs Bavian-Inschrift“, NABU 2017/79, 142-144.
JANSSEN, Th., 2021: „Der Übergang von den Kassiten zur Isin II-Dynastie im Lichte der Distanzangabe des
Assurbanipal“, NABU 2021/81, 186-88.
MENZEL, B., 1981: Assyrische Tempel (Studia Pohl, Series Maior 10/I), Rome.
RIMA 1 = Grayson, A.K., 1987: Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia BC (to 1115 BC) (RIMA 1), Toronto,
Buffalo, London.
RINAP 2 = Frame, G., 2021: The Royal Inscriptions of Sargon II, King of Assyria (721-705 BC) (RINAP 2), University
Park, Pennsylvania.
RINBE 2= Weiershäuser, F., Novotny, J., 2020: The Royal Inscriptions of Amēl-Marduk (561-560 BC), Neriglissar
(559-556 BC), and Nabonidus (555-539 BC), Kings of Babylon (The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-
Babylonian Empire, 2), University Park, Pennsylvania.
Thomas JANSSEN <thomjan@live.de>

– 48 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

22) Eine Neuinterpretation von SAA 10 176 (neubabylonischer Brief eines bārû) — 30 Jahre nach
Erscheinen von SAA X wird mit diesem Beitrag eine Neuinterpretation von SAA 10 176 (= ABL 755 +
1393 = 83-1-18,122 + Ki.1904-10-9,169 = CDLI P237270) vorgelegt, unter Einbezug der neuen
Erkenntnisse zum neubabylonischen Tempussystem (HACKL 2007; STRECK 1995) und zum
Tempelpersonal in neuassyrischer Zeit (BADERSCHNEIDER 2020). Die Neuinterpretation umfasst vier
Punkte des Briefes eines Manns mit Namen Kudurru an den neuassyrischen König:
1. Der rab šāqê (LU₂.GAL—ŠU.DU₈.A-MEŠ, Z. 6 und Z. 16) ist nicht gleichzusetzen mit dem Mann mit
Namen Nabukillanni (md+AG—[k]il-la-an-ni, Z. 11).
2. Für den Titel rab kāṣir (LU₂.GAL—ka-ṣir, Z. 13, Z. 15, Z. 8’) ist die Übersetzung Grossschneider/Oberster
Schneider/Chefschneider anzusetzen.
3. Übersetzung und Interpretation der in SAA X unübersetzt gebliebenen Passage ši ul-tu UGU-hi-šu₂ aq-ba-
aš₂-ši um-ma LU₂.GAL—SAG LUGAL-u-tu₂ i-na-aš₂-ši (Z. 10’–11’) zeigen (allenfalls), welchen Spielraum
ein Opferschauer (bārû) hat, der taktisch agiert und dennoch rituell korrekt handelt.
4. Die bisherige Interpretation, wonach al-la ša₂-a-ru me-hu-u (Z. 20’) sich auf das ausgeführte Ritual bezieht
und der Briefschreiber Kudurru dieses somit selbst für nichtig erklärt, trifft nicht zu.

Die Argumentation stützt sich auf die fast vollständig erhaltenen Passagen von SAA 10 176, nicht auf die
umfangreichen Rekonstruktionen.1) Auf der Vorderseite sind dies Z. 11–21, auf der Rückseite Z. 4’–11’.
In einem ersten Schritt wird eine möglichst an der Ausgangssprache orientierte Neuübersetzung und
Anmerkungen, darunter die Besprechung zweier neuer Lesungen (Z. 18 und Z. 10’), geboten (A). In einem
zweiten Schritt erfolgt die Interpretation im Kontext (B). Abschliessend wird der religionsgeschichtliche
und linguistische Ertrag der Neuinterpretation dargelegt (C).
(A) Neuübersetzung von Z. 11–21 und Z. 4’–11’mit Anmerkungen (Transliteration nach SAA X)
Bis Z. 11 sind die Zeilenanfänge nicht erhalten.
(…) i[na Š]A₃-bi ITI.APIN md+AG—[k]il-la-an-ni 11 […] <Es war> im <Monat> Araḫsamni, als
ki i-bu-kan-ni ina E₂—dEN—KASKAL ul-te-ez-zi-an-ni 12 Nabukillanni mich in das Haus des Herrn von
Harran brachte/holte.
LU₂.GAL—ka-ṣir ki-i u₂-ṣa-a a-na pa-ni-šu₂ 13 Als der Rab Kāṣir zu ihm hineinging,
a-na ŠA₃-bi E₂ e?-li-ti ul-te-la-an-ni 14 liess er mich in einen oberen Raum hinaufgehen.
mam-ma ia-a-nu ina pa-ni-šu₂ al-la LU₂.GAL—ka-ṣir 15 Niemand war bei ihm ausser der Rab Kāṣir,
LU₂.GAL—E₂ LU₂.ša₂—UGU—E₂-a-nu 16 der Rab Bīti, der Ša-Muḫḫi-Bītānu
u LU₂.GAL—ŠU.DU₈.A-MEŠ und der Rab Šāqê.
u₃ LU₂.ša₂—UGU—URU a-na pa-ni-šu₂ ir-ru-ub u uṣ-ṣi 17 Zudem kam und ging der Ša-Muḫḫi-Āli bei ihm
ein und aus.
GIŠ.ku-su-u₂ ki-i is-su-ku-nu ki-i u₂-ši-bu 18 Als ein Stuhl hingestellt worden war <und> ich
GEŠTIN a-ša₂-at-ti a-di dUTU ir-bu-u₂ 19 mich gesetzt hatte, trank ich Wein bis die Sonne
unterging.
GIŠ.GU.ZA-u₂-a ki-i u₂-qar-ri-bu it-ti 20 Als er sich meinem Stuhl näherte mit
GIŠ.iš-QAR-šu₂ ša E₂—[d]PA.TUG₂ i-qab-ba-a 21 dem Iškar des Hauses des Nusku, sagte er:
um-ma LU₂.HAL-⸢u₂-⸣[…] 22 Der Text ist ab Z. 22 bis Z. 3’ nur bruchstückhaft
[…] erhalten.
um-ma a-lik-ma LU₂.HAL-u₂-ti a-na tar-ṣi dUTU 4’ „Geh doch, Mann der Bārûtu, vor Šamaš! Sieh!
bi-ri GAL—LU₂.SAG LUGAL-u₂-tu₂ i-na-aš₂-ši-i 5’ Wird der Rab Ša Rēši das Königtum tragen?“
a-na ŠA₃-bi E₂ e-li-ti ša₂-ni-ti 6’ In einem anderen oberen Raum
A.MEŠ ar-ta-mu-uk ⸢eb⸣-bu-ti at-ta-ši 7’ wusch ich mich <und> hob Reines.
LU₂.GAL—ka-ṣir 2 KUŠ I₃.GIŠ ki-i u₂-še-la-a 8’ Nachdem der Rab Kāṣir zwei Schläuche Öl
hinaufkommen liess,
e-te-pu-uš aq-ta-ba-aš₂-šu₂ um-ma LUGAL-u-tu₂ 9’ machte ich <die Opferschau> <und> sagte zu ihm:
i-na-aš₂-ši ul-tu UGU-hi-šu₂ aq-ba-aš₂-ši 10’ „Wird er die Königsherrschaft tragen?“ Seither
sagte ich [es]:
um-ma LU₂.GAL—SAG LUGAL-u-tu₂ i-na-aš₂-ši 11’ „Der Rab Ša Rēši wird das Königtum tragen.“

– 49 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

[ina UD]-mu […] 12’ Ab Z. 12’ sind die Zeilenanfänge nicht erhalten.
Z. 12 Die Schreibung ki, ansonsten ki-i (Z. 13, Z. 18 [2x], Z. 20, Z. 8’, Z. 19’), ist als Haplographie des i
angesichts der Zeichenfolge Folge ki i-bu-kan-ni zu erklären. Weil der Ventiv bei Subjunktivformen nicht
orthographisch markiert ist, kann brachte oder holte verstanden werden.
Z. 14: Nabukillani ist Initiator (primäres Agens). Kausativa erlauben es (auch in anderen semitischen
Sprachen), ein Geschehen gleichzeitig auf ein veranlassendes Hauptsubjekt und ein untergeordnetes (nicht zwingend
explizit erwähntes) Untersubjekt zu verteilen. Geradezu typisch (vgl. JENNI 1992: 84) erfahren wir hier, wer das
Geschehen initiiert, nicht aber, wie dieses konkret abläuft und wer die Ausführung übernimmt. Deutsch ist diese Stelle
daher besser mit hinaufgehen lassen wiederzugeben als mit hinaufbringen.
Z. 15: Hier ist eine Leerstelle im Text. Das Ich (Kudurru) ist hinaufgegangen (Z. 14), dennoch berichtet es,
wer bei ihm (Nabukillanni) ist, respektive zu ihm hinein- und hinausgeht. Der weitere Erzählverlauf legt nahe, dass
Kudurru aus dem oberen Zimmer Einblick in die unteren Räumlichkeiten (z.B. Innenhof) hat, und schildert, was er
beobachten konnte. Alternativ muss angenommen werden, dass ein Zeitsprung vorliegt und Kudurru nach unten geholt
wurde. Dies erscheint weniger wahrscheinlich, weil er im Brief stets klar berichtet, wenn sich sein Aufenthaltsort
verändert (Zeilen 12, 14, 18, 6’, 10’) und was er tut (Zeilen 18–19, 7’, 9’–11’). Die Erzählung ist um ihn herum
aufgebaut, Bewegungen und Handlungen der anderen Personen berichtet er nur selektiv (13, 17, 20, 8’).
Z. 17: Die iparras-Formen („Präsens“) ir-ru-ub u uṣ-ṣi drücken als Ganzes pluralische resp. iterierte punk-
tuelle Sachverhalte aus, die gleichzeitig zum Gegenwartspunkt des Sprechers ablaufen, siehe STRECK 1995: 90 (§ 5f).
Z. 18: Statt bisher is-su-ku-nu (eigentlich i[s]-su-ku-nu) ist hier die Lesung i[š]-ša-ku-nu (N-Stamm, iprus-
Form („Präteritum“) im Subjunktiv zu erwägen, mit ša für einmal nach neuassyrischem, nicht nach neubabylonischem
Duktus wie Z. 21 und Z. 10’ (siehe MesLZ2 566 in Kapitel VII). Für diese Form des N-Stamms von šakānu sind u.a.
in neuassyrischem und neubabylonischem Kontext verschiedentlich Formen ohne Elision des Vokals zwischen
zweitem und dritten Wurzelkonsonant vor vokalischer Auslautung auf -u belegt. Die Schreibungen variieren von i über
u bis zu a (für Belege siehe s.v. šakānu(m) in: AHw III: 1134b–1139a, insbesondere Abschnitt N; für die
morphophonemische Diskussion BUCCELLATI 1996: 316). Diese Annahme eines „neuassyrischen Verschreibers“ kann
die Nominativschreibung GIŠ.ku-su-u₂ (Z. 18) im Gegensatz zur Akkusativschreibung GIŠ.GU.ZA-u₂-a (Z. 20)
erklären. Die Formulierung ist dann Bestandteil einer Beschreibung eines nicht weiter gewerteten Geschehens.
Demgegenüber impliziert die bisherige Lesung is-su-ku-nu, übersetzt mit they tossed me a seat, dass für GIŠ.ku-su-u₂
(ungeachtet GIŠ.GU.ZA-u₂-a in Z. 20) ein Akkusativ gelesen werden sollte und für das Dativsuffix -ni hier -nu vorliegt
(siehe GAG3 §42 j, Anm.3): Man warf mir einen Stuhl <zu> (da bereits in Z. 14 das Untersubjekt nicht benannt wird,
wäre auch hier eine Interpretation von ki-i is-su-ku-nu als Form der 3.m.pl. zum Ausdruck eines unpersönlichen
Subjekts angezeigt). Diese Lesung wäre aber als Schilderung einer sehr unhöflichen Handlung innerhalb eines
ansonsten nicht weiter gewerteten Geschehens anzusehen (vgl. mit weiteren Belegen des Verbums zusammen mit
geworfenen Gegenständen s.v. nasāku A in CAD N₂/11: 15b–23a, insbesondere Abschnitt 1.b). Der Umstand, dass
man Kudurru mit Wein – nicht gerade dem billigsten Getränk in der Gegend – versorgte, während er wartete, spricht
aber dafür, dass man ihn höflich behandelte. Daher wird hier aufgrund der Nominativschreibung GIŠ.ku-su-u₂ und
unter Rücksicht auf den unmittelbaren Kontext i[š]-ša-ku-nu gelesen und übersetzt. Zu kī … kī siehe WOODINGTON
1982: 273–274; HACKL 2007: 144 [gleichgeordnete Temporalsätze].
Z. 20: u₂-qar-ri-bu wird in Einklang mit der Verbform der nächsten Zeile (i-qab-ba-a) als Form 3.m.sg. im
Subjunktiv aufgefasst und nicht als 3.m.pl. Die Konstruktion qerēbu (D-Stamm) + itti bedingt nur in der deutschen
Übersetzung eine reflexive Wendung, akkadisch ist das „Sich selbst in die Nähe bringen“ im resultatitiven/faktitiven
Aspekt des D-Stamms enthalten, was indirekt darin ersichtlich ist, dass das nicht mit dem Subjekt identische Objekt,
das der Herantretende mitbringt, mit itti konstruiert wird und nicht mit direktem Objekt (siehe s.v. qerēbu in CAD
Q/13: 228a–240a, dort insbesondere zum D Stamm: 10d) und 13 – dabei fällt auf: Das Englische kann mittels to
approach eine dem Akkadischen ähnlichere Struktur abbilden als das Deutsche). Hier ist zudem eine weitere Leerstelle
im Text festzustellen. Sie steht in Beziehung mit Z. 15: Entweder kommt er (Nabukillanni) zum Ich (Kudurru),
nachdem dieser lange Zeit alleine getrunken hat (und warten musste), oder er (Nabukillanni) wendet sich im selben
Raum (nach langer Zeit endlich) dem Ich (Kudurru) zu. Im Einklang mit den Schlussfolgerungen zu Z. 15 ist hier von
erstem auszugehen. Als weiteres Argument ist anzuführen: Wäre Kudurru die ganze Zeit im selben Raum gewesen wie
die anderen, hätte er wohl erwähnt, was diese taten und sagten, während er trank, und nicht nur zu berichten gewusst,
wer da war (Z. 15).
Z. 21: Auf den Ausdruck iškaršu [GIŠ.iš-QAR-šu₂] wird unter (C) eingegangen, deutsch wird die die
Konstruktusform Iškar transkribiert. Das Verbum qabû stellt innerhalb des neu- und spätbabylonischen
Tempussystems eine Aussnahme dar, siehe STRECK 1995: 106–111 (§12). Wo man aufgrund des Analogieschlusses
zu anderen Verben iptaras-Formen („Perfekt“) erwarten würde, stehen für qabû in Hauptsätzen narrativer Passagen
häufig iparras-Formen („Präsens“). So auch im vorliegenden Brief: Z. 21 [i-qab-ba-a] und in den fragmentarisch
erhaltenen Zeilen Z. 8 [i-qab-ba-a], Z. 10 [⸢i-qab⸣-ba-a], Z. 2’ [a-qab-bak-⸢ka⸣]. Alle Verbalformen von qabû sind
formal im Ventiv. Dabei handelt es sich wohl um einen lexikalisierten, nicht um einen produktiven Gebrauch.
Z. 7’: Wegen der semantischen Bandbreite ist unklar, ob das Hochheben reiner Gegenstände oder das Tragen
reiner Kleidung gemeint ist, auch wird ⸢eb⸣-bu-ti nicht mittels eines Determinativs spezifiziert. Aufgrund der

– 50 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

Ritualangaben für Opferschauer (siehe BBR) aus neuassyrischer Zeit, ist letzteres anzunehmen, auch wenn die hier
verwendete Formulierung in den dortigen Texten nicht belegt ist.
Z. 8’: Zur deutschen Übersetzung von u₂-še-la-a vgl. die Anm. zu Z. 14.
Z. 9’: Mit e-te-pu-uš liegt eine elliptische Ausdrucksweise vor, die im Kontext klar ist. Für verschiedene
Wendungen von epēšu + Substantiv mit der Bedeutung eine Opferschau machen siehe HEEßEL 2006: 55–57 und
PONGRATZ-LEISTEN 1999: 135. Für die Interpretation von aq-ta-ba-aš₂-šu₂ als Ventiv + Suffix des indirekten Objekts
(3.m.sg.) vor direkter Rede vgl. z.B. […] a-qab-ba-áš-šú umma […] in der Passage YOS 6,235:12–19 (Nab 12),
geboten in STRECK 1995: 109 (§12f) zusammen mit der Übersetzung Ich fragte ihn […]; des weiteren s.v. qabû in
CAD Q/13: 22a-42b, insbesondere Abschintt1.d) 4’ in letters and leg. Dass es sich beim maskulinen Suffix nicht um
ein anaphorisches Pronomen handelt, das sich auf den Wortlaut der direkten Rede bezieht, zeigt die Form aq-ba-aš₂-ši
in Z. 10', bei der das feminine Suffix diese Funktion erfüllt. Gegenüber den sonstigen iparras-Formen („Präsens“) von
qabû (vgl. die Anm. zu Z.21) liegt hier mit aq-ta-ba-aš₂-šu₂ eine iptaras-Form („Perfekt“), in Z. 10’ mit aq-ba-aš₂-ši
eine iprus-Form („Präteritum“) vor. Somit bezeugt auch SAA 10 179 9’–10’ die Vertauschbarkeit beim Verb qabû von
iparras-Formen („Präsens“) mit iptaras-Formen („Perfekt“) in Aussagehauptsätzen bzw. mit iprus-Formen
(„Präteritum“) in subordinierten Sätzen; für weitere Beispiele siehe STRECK 1995: 109 (§12g) [und wohl eigentlich
auch die meisten seiner Belege S. 152–153 (§33d)].
Z. 10’: Hier ist ul-tu UGU-hi [š]a statt wie bisher ul-tu UGU-hi-šu₂ zu lesen, vgl. https://cdli.ucla.edu/P237270
(letzter Zugriff 11/04/23): Die Bruchstelle verläuft zwar ungünstig, doch erkennt man noch den oberen, zusätzlichen
Winkelhaken, der das ša im neubabylonischen Duktus im zweiten Teil des Zeichens hat, der aber für šu₂ zuviel ist
(siehe MesLZ2 566 und 869 in Kapitel VII; der zusätzliche Winkelhaken ist schon abgebildet in ABL 755). Mit ul-tu
UGU-hi [š]a aq-ba-aš₂-ši liegt ein temporaler Nebensatz mit iprus-Form („Präteritum“) vor, wobei bei ul-tu UGU-hi
ša im Gegensatz zu kī „der im subordinierten Satz beschriebene Sachverhalt auch punktuell festgelegt sein kann
(‚seit’)“, siehe HACKL 2007: 32. Die Konstruktion hier dient der temporalen Einordnung der mit um-ma eingeleiteten
Rede, siehe HACKL 2007: 76. Die dortige Bezeichnung solcher Konstruktionen als anakoluthisch ist als implizit
zielsprachlich orientiert zu hinterfragen, bedingt doch lediglich die deutschte Übersetzung die Umformung in einen
adverbial eingeleiteten Hauptsatz (seither), d.h. einen Satz ohne verbales Prädikat in Endstellung.

(B) Interpretation im Kontext

1) Der rab šāqê (LU₂.GAL—ŠU.DU₈.A-MEŠ, Z. 6 und Z. 16) ist nicht gleichzusetzen mit dem Mann mit
Namen Nabukillanni (md+AG—[k]il-la-an-ni, Z. 11).
Dies ergibt sich aus den Zeilen 15–17: Niemand war bei ihm (ina pa-ni-šu₂) ausser der Rab Kāṣir, der Rab
Bīti, der Ša-Muḫḫi-Bītānu und der Rab Šāqê. Zudem kam und ging der Ša-Muḫḫi-Āli bei ihm (a-na pa-ni-šu₂) ein und
aus. Die Person, die durch ina pa-ni-šu₂ und a-na pa-ni-šu₂ referenziert wird, kann mit keiner der Personen identisch
sein, die danach aufgezählt werden. Zuvor, in den Zeilen 11–13, heisst es: <Es war> im <Monat> Araḫsamni, als
Nabukillanni mich in das Haus des Herrn von Harran brachte/holte. Während der Rab Kāṣir zu ihm hineinging (a-na
pa-ni-šu₂), liess er mich in einen oberen Raum hinaufgehen. Die bisherige Deutung, wonach -šu₂ sich auf den Rab
Kāṣir beziehe (und dieser in Z. 13 seine eigenen Räumlichkeiten betritt), entfällt, weil der Rab Kāṣir unter denen bei
ihm (ina pa-ni-šu₂) in Z. 15–16 erscheint. Der Herr von Harran, also der Mondgott, kann aufgrund des weiteren
Erzählverlaufs auch nicht gemeint sein. Das Suffix -šu₂ kann demnach in den Zeilen 11–17 nur auf Nabukillanni
hinweisen, der in Z. 11 Subjekt ist. Dann kann Nabukillanni aber nicht mit dem Rab Šāqê gleichgesetzt werden, weil
der Rab Šāqê ebenfalls unter denen bei ihm (ina pa-ni-šu₂) in Z. 15–16 erscheint. Somit ist sicherlich die bisherige
Übersetzung „(until) [Nabû-kill]anni the chief cupbearer sent …“zu verwerfen, womöglich auch die Rekonstruktion
in Z. 6 ([mdAG—kil-la]-an-ni LU₂.GAL—LU₂.ŠU.DU₈.A-MEŠ)2), und es stellt sich die Frage nach der Funktion und
der Stellung von Nabukillanni. Da er über eigene Räumlichkeiten am Sin-Tempel von Harran verfügt, gehört er zum
Tempel. Angesichts der bedeutenden Politgrössen, die sich bei ihm versammeln, liegt der Schluss nahe, dass er eine
zentrale Persönlichkeit des Sin-Tempels ist.

2) Für rab kāṣir (LU₂.GAL—ka-ṣir, Z. 13, Z. 15, Z. 8’) ist die Übersetzung Grossschneider/Oberster
Schneider/Chefschneider anzusetzen
Der Rab Kāṣir erscheint in SAA 10 179 als rechte Hand von Nabukillanni: Er war dabei, als dieser Kudurru zum
Tempel brachte/holte, und ging darauf zu Nabukillanni hinein (Z. 11–13). Danach ist er es, der zwei Schläuche Öl zu
Kudurru hinaufkommen lässt (Z. 8’). An Tempeln arbeiteten verschiedene Textilhandwerker, so auch kāṣiru, Schneider
(siehe BADERSCHNEIDER 2020: 200–205, 215).3) In Verbindung mit rab werden in neuassyrischer Zeit Vorsteher
verschiedener Berufsgruppen benannt. Wer eine solche Position innehatte, stand auf einer höheren Stufe der
Tempelhierarchie, und es ist nicht klar, inwiefern die Tätigkeit dann noch mit dem angestammten Beruf zusammenhing
– dies entsprechend zu den rab der Staats-, Provinz- und Stadtverwaltung (vgl. in SAA 10 179 der Rab Šāqê und der
Rab Ša Rēši). Wenn auch bislang kein rab kāṣir urkundlich belegt ist, so ist es doch plausibel, einen solchen am Tempel
von Harran zu vermuten. Der bisherige Konjekturvorschlag ki-ṣir für ka-ṣir und die Wiedergabe des Terminus mit
chief commander in der englischen Übersetzung ist wohl lediglich der falschen Rekonstruktion geschuldet

– 51 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

(Gleichsetzung von Nabukillanni mit dem Rab Šāqê): Dass einer der ranghöchsten Militär des neuassyrischen Reiches
einen Oberschneider dabei gehabt haben soll, war dann doch unverständlich.
3) Übersetzung und Interpretation der in SAA X unübersetzt gebliebenen Passage ši ul-tu UGU-hi-šu₂ aq-
ba-aš₂-ši um-ma LU₂.GAL—SAG LUGAL-u-tu₂ i-na-aš₂-ši (Z. 10’–11’) zeigen (allenfalls), welchen
Spielraum ein Opferschauer (bārû) hat, der taktisch agiert und dennoch rituell korrekt handelt.
In den Z. 5’, 9’–10’ und 11’ steht dreimal fast derselbe Wortlaut, der aber im Kontext jeweils eine unterschiedliche
Funktion hat:
Z. 4’–5’ Der Auftrag, den Kudurru erhält: „Geh doch, Mann der Bārûtu, vor Šamaš! Sieh! Wird der Rab Ša Rēši das
Königtum tragen (= GAL—LU₂.SAG LUGAL-u₂-tu₂ i-na-aš₂-ši-i)?“
Z. 9’–10’ Die Frage, die Kudurru während der Opferschau stellt: „Wird er die Königsherrschaft tragen (= LUGAL-u₂-
tu₂ i-na-aš₂-ši-i)?“
Z. 11’ Die Deutung der Opferschau, die Kudurru danach verkündet: „Der Rab Ša Rēši wird das Königtum tragen (=
LU₂.GAL—SAG LUGAL-u-tu₂ i-na-aš₂-ši).“
Insbesondere die Zeilen 9’–10’ ergeben nur Sinn, wenn man sie in das rituelle Gerüst einer Opferschau einordnet: Der
Opferschauer muss sich reinigen und saubere Kleidung tragen (vgl. Z. 7’), die Opferschau muss an einem
abgesonderten Ort stattfinden (vgl. die explizite Erwähnung des anderen oberen Raumes in Z. 6’, denkbar ist gar eine
Dachterrasse). Der Rab Kāṣir lässt Öl hinaufschicken (Z. 8’), von seinem Eintreten oder Dabeisein ist keine Rede.
Nachdem das Öl hinaufgeschickt wurde – die iprus-Form („Präteritum“) ist hier als Vorvergangenheit zum Hauptsatz
zu verstehen –, vollzieht Kudurru die Öl-Opferschau (Z. 9’–10’) und fragt in diesem Rahmen: „Wird er die
Königsherrschaft tragen (= LUGAL-u₂-tu₂ i-na-aš₂-ši-i)?“ Die Person, an die er die Frage richtet, aq-ta-ba-aš₂-šu₂, ist
Šamaš (vgl. Z. 4’). Nach der mesopotamischen Konzeption sind Götter im Rahmen der Opferschau reale Agenten, wir
haben es mit divne agency zu tun. Nach der Opferschau (Z. 10’–11’) verkündet Kudurru „Der Rab Ša Rēši wird das
Königtum tragen (= LU₂.GAL—SAG LUGAL-u-tu₂ i-na-aš₂-ši).“
Kudurru lässt bei seiner Schilderung zwar viele Details weg (z.B. erfahren wir nicht, welches
Gefäss er benutzt hat oder welche Gebete er gesprochen hat), aber er schreibt dem neuassyrischen König,
was er gefragt und was er danach verkündet hat. Mit anderen Worten: Hat die Differenz zwischen dem
Wortlaut in Z. 4’–5’ und Z. 11’ und dem Wortlaut in Z. 9’–10’ einen Sinn und ist nicht lediglich eine
redundante Erzählung mit zufälliger Auslassung in Z. 9’–10’, so bleibt nur eine Deutungsmöglichkeit.
Kudurrus Brief offenbart, worin sein einziger Handlungsspielraum bestand: darin, unpräzise zu fragen und
danach eine einseitige Deutung zu unterbreiten.4) Indem Kudurru bei der Anfrage das Subjekt (Rab Ša
Rēši) nicht explizit benennt, überlässt er Šamaš, was dieser verstehen will.
4) Die bisherige Interpretation, wonach al-la ša₂-a-ru me-hu-u (Z. 20’) sich auf das ausgeführte Ritual
bezieht und also der Briefschreiber Kudurru dieses selbst für ungültig erklärt, ist abzulehnen.
Nicht nur Kudurru, seine ganze Tradition bemühte sich darum, den Audienzrahmen der Opferschau nicht zu gefährden,
damit die Gottheit(en) sich in der Opfermaterie offenbarte(n). Dies bezeugen nicht nur die Ritualanweisungen für den
Opferschauer (vgl. BBR), sondern die zahlreichen ezib-Formeln, die in den Opferschauanfragen für Asarhaddon und
Assurbanipal festgehalten sind (vgl. SAA IV). Die unter Punkt 3 aufgeführten Schilderungen belegen, dass Kudurru
daran liegt, von einem korrekt durchgeführten Ritual zu berichten. Die Rekonstruktion in SAA 10 179, wonach
Kudurru in Z. 19’-20’ geschrieben hätte : „[…] my [lord]: The extispicy [wich I performed was] but a colossal fraud“
leidet nicht nur wie der Rest des Briefrahmens daran, dass die erste Hälfte der Zeilen gänzlich fehlen, sondern
darüberhinaus auch noch am kleinen Schönheitsfehler, dass im erhaltenen Text nicht von der durchgeführten Schau,
sondern vom Opferschauer selbst (LU₂.HAL-u₂-tu, Z. 19’) die Rede ist.

(C) Religionsgeschichtlicher und linguistischer Ertrag

SAA 10 179 wird gemeinhin zu den Dokumenten rund um die Verschwörung gegen Asarhaddon 671/670
v.u.Z. gerechnet, die ihren Ausgang bei einem Prophetenspruch im Namen des Gottes Nusku genommen
hatte, dann aber rechtzeitig vereitelt wurde (siehe u.a. RADNER 2003; NISSINEN 1998: 108–153). Vor
diesem Hintergrund ist die hier vorgelegte Neuinterpretation von Z. 11–21 und Z. 4’–11’in zweierlei
Hinblick religionsgeschichtlich interessant:
1) Sie zeigt, dass Nabukillanni vom Tempel von Harran federführend die Opferschau in Auftrag gab und sich bei ihm
hohe Würdenträger einfanden, allen voran der Rab Šāqê. Allerdings wird aufgrund des fragmentarischen
Erhaltungszustands des Briefrahmens weder klar, in wessen Auftrag der Tempel handelte, noch aus welcher
Veranlassung heraus und zu welchem Zeitpunkt Kudurru den Brief schrieb (ohne Kontext helfen selbst die erhaltenen

– 52 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

Phrasen ṣab-ta-ak u aš₂-ba-ak, Z. 4, […]-dab-bu-ub um-ma la du-kan-ni, Z. 21’, und ⸢la⸣ i-šem-me-ma la du-kan-ni,
Z. 23’, diesbezüglich nicht weiter).
2) Angesichts der Schreibung GIŠ.iš-QAR-šu₂ ša E₂—[d]PA.TUG₂ (Z. 21; drittes Zeichen nach MesZL2 kar₃ zu lesen)
kann die Interpretation gewagt werden, dass mit dem Iškar des Hauses des Nusku eine auf Wachstäfelchen
festgehaltene Sammlung von Prophetenworten des Nuskutempels gemeint ist.

Aus linguistischer Sicht ist bemerkenswert, dass sich die von STRECK 1995 und HACKL 2007 erarbeiteten
Erkenntnisse zum spätbabylonischen Tempussystem problemlos, ja sogar mit grossem Gewinn auf SAA 10
179, Z. 11–21 und Z. 4’–11’, anwenden lassen, also auf einen Brief, der gemeinhin der neubabylonischen
Sprachstufe respektive der in Niniveh gefundenen Königskorrespondenz zugerechnet wird (zu diesen
Einteilungen siehe STRECK 1995: xxvi). In Strecks Analysekategorien ausgedrückt, heisst dies für den
vorliegenden Bericht über ein Geschehen in der Vergangenheit: Gleichzeitigkeit oder Vorzeitigkeit der
temporalen Nebensätze zu den darauffolgenden Hauptsätzen wird ausgedrückt mit iprus-Formen in
temporalen Nebensätzen (nach kī: 12 i-bu-kan-ni, 13 u₂-ṣa-a, 18 is-su-ku-nu / i[š]-ša-ku-nu, u₂-ši-bu, 20
u₂-qar-ri-bu, 8’ u₂-še-la-a; nach adi: 19 ir-bu-u₂; nach ultu muḫḫi ša: 10’ aq-ba-aš₂-ši), während in den
Hauptsätzen iptaras-Formen stehen (14 ul-te-la-an-ni, 19 a-ša₂-at-ti, 7’ ar-ta-mu-uk, at-ta-ši, 9’ e-te-pu-
uš, aq-ta-ba-aš₂-šu₂), wenn nicht individuelle Gegenwart oder Zukunft nach iparras-Formen verlangen (17
ir-ru-ub, uṣ-ṣi, 21 i-qab-ba-a, 5’ i-na-aš₂-ši-i, 10’ i-na-aš₂-ši-i, 11’ i-na-aš₂-ši-i) bzw. ein zeitstufenloser
Nominalsatz mit Existenzpartikel (15 mam-ma ia-a-nu ina pa-ni-šu₂ al-la […]) zum Einsatz kommt.
Anmerkungen
1. SAA X bietet eine annähernd durchgehende Rekonstruktion des Textes von Z. 1–22 und Z. 1’–23’,
inklusive Übersetzung. Rekonstruierte Passagen sind zwar mittels eckiger Klammern ausgewiesen, machen aber
schnell vergessen, dass die Z. 1–10 und Z. 15’–23’ plus minus bis zur Zeilenmitte frei rekonstruiert sind: Das
Keilschrifttäfelchen ist in mehrere Teile zersprungen, seine rechte Seite ist fast gänzlich in einem grösseren Stück
erhalten (ABL 755 = 83-1-18,122), von der linken Seite ist bislang nur der untere Teil bekannt (ABL 1393 = Ki. 1904-
10-9,169), siehe: https://cdli.ucla.edu/P237270 (letzter Zugriff 11/04/23).
2. So in SAA 10 (Nr. 179, S. 142–143). Will man bei der Rekonstruktion [mdAG—kil-la]-an-ni LU₂.GAL—
LU₂.ŠU.DU₈.A-MEŠ bleiben, darf LU₂.GAL—LU₂.ŠU.DU₈.A-MEŠ nicht als Apposition verstanden werden.
Dennoch ist diese Rekonstruktion keinesfalls zwingend: Alleine im vorliegenden Brief ist die Zeichenkombination an-
ni in den Zeilen 4, 6, 7, 11, 12 (2x), 14, 24’, 25’ belegt, meist als Bestandteil eines konjugierten und suffigierten
Verbums. Unverbundene Parataxe von Verbalformen ist in den Zeilen 7’ und 9’ belegt, verbundene in Z. 17. Man
könnte also – genauso hypothetisch – in Z. 6 eine weitere Verbform im Anschluss an u₂-ṣal-la (Z. 5) ansetzen (zur
Briefeinleitung gehörend) und den im engeren Sinne berichtenden Teil mit LU₂.GAL—LU₂.ŠU.DU₈.A-MEŠ beginnen
lassen.
3. Nebenbei: Die deutsche Übersetzung Schneider, die sich in der Fachliteratur eingebürgert hat, ist insofern
unglücklich, als dass die Herstellung von Kleidungsstücken damals sehr wenig mit Schneiden, und vielmehr mit
Wickeln, Knüpfen und Nähen zu tun gehabt haben dürfte; siehe auch s.v. kaṣāru(m) in: AHw I: 456a–457b. Mit einer
breiteren Etymologie (u.a. knoten, knüpfen, zusammenbringen, organisieren) liesse sich auch besser erklären, was
GROSS 2014:88 für die neubabylonische Zeit feststellt, nämlich dass kāṣirū über die Textilarbeit hinausgehende,
möglicherweise administrative, Aufgaben hatten (so der Hinweis in BADERSCHNEIDER 2020: 202, Anm. 1525).
4. Kudurru werden zwei Schläuche Öl zur Verfügung gestellt. Die Annahme, er habe die Opferschau zweimal
vollzogen, und einmal die unpräzise und einmal die präzise Frage gestellt, ergibt keinen Sinn. Vielmehr ist
anzunehmen, dass der zweite Schlauch zum Einsatz gekommen wäre, wenn die Antwort unklar gewesen wäre (siehe
die Rekonstruktionen der Ölopferschau bei PETTINATO 1966: 49–50). Zudem widerspricht der Erzählaufbau (ich sagte
ihm – danach sagte ich [es]) dieser Deutung.

Verwendete Literatur
BADERSCHNEIDER, S., 2020, Die Tempel von Aššur und ihr Personal. Untersuchungen zur beruflichen und
institutionellen Netzwerken in der altorientalischen Kultmetropole Aššur in neuassyrischer Zeit,
Dissertation, Universität Heidelberg. DOI: 10.11588/heidok.00030926.
BUCCELLATI, G., 1996, A Structural Grammar of Babylonian, Wiesbaden.
DIETRICH, M., 1969, „Untersuchungen zur Grammatik des Neubabylonischen, I: Die neubabylonischen
Subjunktionen“, in W. Röllig (Hg.), lišan mitḫurti, Festschrift W. von Soden, AOAT 1, S. 65–99,
Kevelaer und Neukirchen-Vluyn.
HACKL, J., 2007, Der subordinierte Satz in den spätbabylonischen Briefen, AOAT 341, Münster.
HEEßEL, N. P., 2006, „Akkadian“, als Teil von: M. Stausberg (Hg.), „Ritual: A Survey of Some Related Terms“, in J.
Kreinath et al. (Hg.), Theorizing Rituals: Issues, Topics, Approaches, Concepts, NUMEN.Supp
114, Leiden, S. 55–57.

– 53 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

JENNI, E., 1992, „Kausativ und Funktionsverbgefüge. Sprachliche Bemerkungen zur Bitte: ‚Führe uns nicht in
Versuchung‘“, ThZ 48/1 (1992), S. 77–88.
NISSINEN, M., 1998, References to Prophecy in Neo-Assyrian Sources, SAAS 7, Helsinki.
PETTINATO, G., 1966, Die Ölwahrsagung bei den Babyloniern (2 Bd.), StSem 21–22, Rom.
PONGRATZ-LEISTEN, B., 1999, Herrschaftswissen in Mesopotamien: Formen der Kommunikation zwischen Gott und
König im 2. und 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr, SAAS 10, Helsinki.
RADNER, K., 2003, „The Trials of Esarhaddon. The Conspiracy of 670 BC“, Isimu 6: 165–84.
STRECK, M. P., 2003, Die akkadischen Verbalstämme mit ta-Infix. AOAT 303. Münster.
STRECK, M. P., 1995, Zahl und Zeit: Grammatik der Numeralia und des Verbalsystems im Spätbabylonischen, CuMO
5, Groningen.
WOODINGTON, N. R., 1982, A Grammar of the Neo-Babylonian Letters of the Kuyunjik Collection (Middle East),
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses 303227321. Ph.D., Yale University: https://www.proquest.com/
docview/303227321.
Nesina GRÜTTER <nesina.gruetter@unibas.ch>
AT und semitische Sprachwissenschaft, Basel (SCHWEIZ)

23) Little-known Editions of an Epigraph of Ashurbanipal — Among the translations of Assyrian and
Babylonian texts, which Edward Hincks prepared for the Trustees of the British Museum in 1853-1854,
there is a selection of the epigraphs of Sennacherib and Ashurbanipal.1) These translations, often
accompanied by transcriptions (not transliterations), have rarely been given any attention. However, J. M.
Russell’s use of them in his study of the epigraphs of Sennacherib has been rewarding (Russell 1999: 289-
291), and Grayson and Novotny follow Russell in acknowledging the importance of Hincks’s
transcriptions, which “aided in the identification” of the epigraphs in texts no. 75 and no. 76, RINAP 3/2,
2014, pp. 119 and 120. Hincks gives transcriptions and translations of six Sennacherib epigraphs. The
corresponding texts in RINAP 3/2 are, following Hincks’s order, nos. 67, 59, 66, 76, 75, and 73.
Little or no attention has been paid to Hincks’s translations of four epigraphs of Ashurbanipal.
Three of these, to which the corresponding texts in RINAP 5/1, 2018, are nos. 27:1-3; 35:1-6; and 36, will
not be discussed in this article. The focus will be on (a) Hincks’s transcription and translation of the six-
line epigraph from the battle of Tīl-Tūba relief (BL Add MS 22097, fol. 24r; see RINAP 5/1 no. 26);2)
(b) his cuneiform copy, transliteration and slightly different transcription of the same epigraph near the end
of the manuscript (fol. 54r-54v);3) and (c) Hincks’s 1863 publication of the cuneiform text with a
transliteration, a generally more accurate transcription, and an improved translation, which are
accompanied by textual and philological notes (Hincks 1863: 88-96 + plate 1).4

Fig. 1 “Epigraph on a Battle Scene”. Hincks 1863: plate 1 (facing p. 88)

The cuneiform copy and the transliteration on fol. 54r are presented by Hincks as “a specimen of
the way in which I think an inscription ought to be edited” (fol. 53v). He further writes: “I first give a
representation of the inscription as it appears on the stone…it is the legend on one of the bas-reliefs in the
far gallery in the museum” (54r). For some reason he does not place the six lines of the inscription one
under the other, but writes a continuous text, using vertical lines to mark the ends of the lines. In other
respects the cuneiform text has been copied carefully and neatly. However, there is one surprise. At the

– 54 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

end of line 3, where the signs are partly damaged on the stone slab bearing the epigraph, Hincks has the
signs for ZI-šú-un. See also Hincks 1863: plate 1 (facing p. 88); Smith 1871: 143-144, napišti-šu-un (= ZI-
šú-un). This reading matches what is on the BM tablet K 4527+. Smith’s copy in 3 R pl. 37 no. 3 (1870),
however, has the signs for ZI.MEŠ-šú which is followed by Gerardi (1988: 31). But, as Borger noted (1996:
297), ZI-tì-šú best fits the traces in the epigraph on the original relief.5)
In his notes on the text, Hincks (1863: 92) writes:
The character ZI represents the Chaldean [= Sumerian] word for “life”, for which I substitute the Assyrian
plural noun, having the same signification, which appears in parallel passages. It is followed by the
possessive affix of the 3 m. p. This would be šunu; but as the accent on the noun was on the penultimate
syllable, and as three short vowels after the accented one were considered too many, the final u was dropped
– an omission which could cause no confusion.
Hincks was familiar with the words ana šu-zu-ub ZI.MEŠ-šú-nu because they occur in the inscriptions of
Ashurnasirpal II (Grayson 1991, RIMA 2, A.0.101.1 i 80, ii 99, ii 113), which he had translated for
inclusion in his manuscript for the trustees of the British Museum. But this does not account for his reading
ZI-šú-un, because these texts have ZI.MEŠ-šú-nu. The assumption must be that he has seen BM tablet K
4527+ (RINAP 5/2 no. 164 obv. 10’).
Hincks’s transcription and translation of the epigraph (1863: 88-89 + plate 1)6)
1 Tiyumman šar ‘Ilami ša aš taḫazi danni Tiyumman king of Elam, who in a great battle
2 muḫḫuṣu tamritu abilšu rabu had been beaten, Tamritu his eldest son
3 qatsu iṣbatuma ana šu‘zup napšatišun his hand had taken and for the being saved of their lives
4 innaptu iḫlupu qirib qiṣti they fled; they hid among the thorns.
5 aš tukulti Aššuri u Ištari adukšunuti In reliance on Assur and Ishtar I killed them;
6 qaqqadušunu ’unakkis miḫrit aḫani Their heads I cut off over against one another.
Line 1: i) Hincks has arrived at the incorrect view that the consonant ‘ of proto-Semitic or proto-Akkadian roots should
be represented in transcription: hence ‘Ilami (Heb. ‘êlām) and in line 3, šu‘zub (Heb. ‘zb); he has not thought of Aram.
šêzīb. ii) He has replaced his correct 1854 reading ina by aš. See also the beginning of line 5.
Line 4: i) In 1854 Hincks correctly wrote innabtu. ii) The reading qiṣti and translation “thorns” are based on an incorrect
association of Akk. qištu with Heb. qôṣ, “thorn, thorn-bush”. Hincks thinks this is “a signification which will suit the
context, and accord with the sculptures, in which the unfortunate princes are represented surrounded by prickly shrubs”
(1863: 93).
Line 5: The 1854 transliteration of the first three signs, ina TKL.ti, with TKL written in Hebrew letters, and the
transcription ina tukulti are better than the 1863 readings aš KU-ti and aš tukulti. Compare Gerardi 1988: 31, KU-ti,
and RINAP 5/1 no. 26: 5, ina TUKUL-ti.
Line 6: Hincks interpreted the sign for meš in aḫāmeš as the plural marker and read a tentative ending ni or mi which
he underlined to indicate that the readings were doubtful.

Notes
1. In April 1853 Hincks entered into an agreement with the trustees of the British Museum to prepare
transcriptions (“into English character”) and translations of certain cuneiform inscriptions. The contract with the
trustees was for one year from 1 May 1853. In May 1854 Hincks sent Henry Ellis, the Principal Librarian, his
transcriptions and translations, which he wrote in two hardcover books. See the correspondence and details in Cathcart
2008: 197-203, 241-245. In the British Library the books are catalogued as one manuscript, Readings of Inscriptions
on the Nineveh Marbles, 1854, Add MS 22097, which has 56 folios. The title is not Hincks’s and was added by a
member of the staff in the British Museum. The epigraphs of Sennacherib are on fols. 11v-12r and those of
Ashurbanipal are on fols. 23v-25r. The manuscript is cited with the permission of the British Library.
2. The relief is from Nineveh, Southwest Palace, Room XXXIII, slab 3 (BM 124801). See the photo in
Russell 1999: 170, fig. 53.
3. It is remarkable that on fol. 54v Hincks does not have a cross-reference to his transcription and translation
on fol. 24r, because there are some differences between the transcriptions. On fol. 54v, Hincks has Nimmaki for
Nummaki, innaptu for innabtu, and unappis for unappiṣ.
4. The title of Hincks’s article, “On the Polyphony of the Assyrio-Babylonian Cuneiform Writing: A Letter
to Professor Renouf from Rev. Dr. Hincks”, requires some comment. Peter le Page Renouf (1822-97), an Egyptologist,
was professor of ancient history and oriental languages at the Catholic University of Ireland (now University College
Dublin) from 1854 to 1864. He was one of the editors of The Atlantis, a journal of the university. In 1862 Hincks asked

– 55 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

him for the opportunity to write an article for The Atlantis, “setting forth the grounds on which the use of polyphonous
signs by the Assyrian cuneiform writers must be admitted as a fact – tho’ a disagreeable one and one that adds to the
difficulty of deciphering this kind of writing, but by no means renders it impossible” (Cathcart 2003: 113). Hincks
included in his article detailed editions of several cuneiform texts. In 1886 Renouf was appointed Keeper of Oriental
(later Egyptian and Assyrian) Antiquities at the British Museum and he did Assyriology a great service by bringing
Carl Bezold to the museum to catalogue the cuneiform tablets. In the offprints of his article Hincks writes: “It seems
proper to state that this paper was written in the early part of 1862, and was printed off in August of that year, but was
retained in the printer’s hands till the volume [IV] of the Atlantis, of which it forms a part, was published, in May,
1863”. The Atlantis, vol. 4, is available in the digital collections of the library at Trinity College Dublin. See
https://digitalcollections.tcd.ie
5. According to Jamie Novotny (personal communication), the šú is not well executed, but the sign tì fits the
preserved traces on the slab. The reading -šú-un is impossible on the relief, as is MEŠ-šú.
6. I have lightly modernised Hincks’s method of transcription. For example, Hincks uses ç for s (in previous
years he used ç for ṣ) and zh for ṣ. This led to some errors in the printing of the article and a note in the offprints
mentions that in line 3 of plate 1 ç should be read for gu. There are two more errors in the plate: in line 3 read izh (iṣ)
for iz, and in line 6 read ç (s) for z. In his transliteration Hincks has proposed the following logographic values: MAN
(šar); NUM.MA.KI (1854 fol. 54r, NIM.MA.KI) (‘Ilami); GAL-u (rabu); ZI-šu-un (napšatišun); KU-ti (tukulti; see
Gerardi 1988: 31); (god) XV (Ištar); SAK-du-šu-nu (qaqqadušunu); KUT-is (RINAP 5/2 no. 26: 6, KUD-is = akkis).
He admits defeat in identifying the signs for Aššur (AN.ŠÁR): “Two signs are used for the god Assur; but I confess
myself unable to say why they should be so. This mode of expressing the name appears, so far as I am aware, to have
come into use about the middle of the seventh century before Christ” (Hincks 1863: 94). In desperation he writes: (god)
ḪI.

Bibliography
BORGER, R., 1996. Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals. Wiesbaden.
CATHCART, K. J. (ed.), 2003. The Letters of Peter le Page Renouf (1822-1897), Vol. 3, Dublin (1854-1864). Dublin.
CATHCART, K. J., 2008. The Correspondence of Edward Hincks, Vol. 3, 1850-1856. Dublin.
GERARDI, P., 1988. “Epigraphs and Assyrian Palace Reliefs: The Development of the Epigraphic Text”, JCS 40: 1-35.
GRAYSON, A. K., 1991. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114-859 BC). RIMA 2; Toronto.
GRAYSON, A. K. and J. NOVOTNY, 2014. The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704-681 BC), Part
2. RINAP 3/2; Winona Lake, IN.
HINCKS, E., 1863. “On the Polyphony of the Assyrio-Babylonian Cuneiform Writing: A Letter to Professor Renouf
from Rev. Dr. Hincks”, The Atlantis 4/7-8: 57-112 + 2 plates.
JEFFERS, J. and J. NOVOTNY, 2023. The Royal Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal (668-631 BC), Aššur-etel-ilāni (630-627
BC) and Sîn-šarra-iškun (626-612 BC), Kings of Assyria, Part 2. RINAP 5/2; University Park, PA.
NOVOTNY, J. and J. JEFFERS, 2018. The Royal Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal (668-631 BC), Aššur-etel-ilāni (630-627
BC) and Sîn-šarra-iškun (626-612 BC), Kings of Assyria, Part 1. RINAP 5/1; University Park, PA.
RAWLINSON, H. C. and G. SMITH, 1870. The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, 3. London.
RUSSELL, J. M., 1999. The Writing on the Wall. Winona Lake, IN.
SMITH, G., 1871. History of Assurbanipal; translated from the Cuneiform Inscriptions. London.

Kevin J. CATHCART <kevin.cathcart@ucd.ie>

24) Merodach-baladan II’s Escape to Turtle Island — After being defeated by Sennacherib’s forces at
Cutha and Kish during Sennacherib’s first campaign from 704-703 BC, Merodach-baladan II fled into the
swamps of Guzummānu, where Sennacherib’s forces searched for him for five days without success
(RINAP 3/1 1:23-26, 34). Merodach-baladan did not leave Babylonia, however, and likely managed to free
the territory of his native Bīt-Yakīn tribe from Assyrian control for a third time by 700 BC (Elayi, 2018,
90-91). As a result, Sennacherib directed his fourth campaign against Bīt-Yakīn in 700 BC.
According to the early versions of Sennacherib’s annals compiled between 697 and 694,
Merodach-baladan loaded his gods into boats as Sennacherib’s army approached and “flew away like a
bird to Nagīte-raqqi, which is in the middle of the sea” (ana nagīti-raqqi ša qabal tâmtim iṣṣūriš ippariš;
RINAP 3/1 15: col. iv ln. 31´-34´; cf. 16: col. iv. ln. 56-57; 17: col. iv ln. 4-5). He allegedly fled so quickly
that he left his brothers and the people of his own Bīt-Yakīn tribe stranded on the seashore to be captured
by the advancing Assyrian army (RINAP 3/1 15: col. iv ln. 35´-col. v ln. 2).
Sennacherib’s annalistic inscriptions compiled after his sixth campaign against Elam in 694 BC
usually reproduce the earlier account of the fourth campaign in which Merodach-baladan fled to Nagīte-
raqqi (RINAP 3/1 18: col. iii ln. 19´-20´; 21: col. ii´ ln. 5´-6´; 22: col. iii ln. 64-65; 23: col. iii ln. 64-65).
However, a fragmentary annalistic account which must date after 693 BC instead mentions that Merodach-

– 56 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

baladan fled to the city of [URUna]gīti, and disappeared from there after Sennacherib attacked it (RINAP
3/1 26: col. i ln. 4´-5´). This is echoed in several non-annalistic accounts, including an inscribed stone slab
from Nebi Yunus (now lost) which adds the details that Merodach-baladan carried the bones of his
ancestors with him and that he “fled to the city of Nagītu on the far side of the Bitter Sea” (ana URUNagīti
ša ebertān ÍDmarrat ēbir-ma; RINAP 3/1 34:10), and from there disappeared. An inscription on a pair of
lamassus positioned outside the throne room of the Southwest Palace which describes events down to
Sennacherib’s sixth campaign reconciles the old and new accounts by saying that Merodach-baladan “fled
to the city of Nagītu which is in the middle of the sea” (ana URUNagīti ša qabal tâmtim innabit; RINAP 3/2
46:35).
These later inscriptions appear to be attempting to harmonize the earlier account of Merodach-
baladan’s flight from the Sealand with the events of Sennacherib’s sixth campaign against the cities of
Nagītu and Nagītu-di’bīna along the coast of Elam. Accounts of sixth campaign emphasize that refugees
from Bīt-Yakīn opposed to Assyrian rule had fled and settled there (RINAP 3/1 22: col. iv ln. 32-39; 23:
col. iv ln. 26-31; 34:19-23; cf. RINAP 3/2 44:26-27; 230:17-18). By harmonizing Merodach-baladan’s
destination with the target of the sixth campaign, the non-annalistic inscriptions emphasize the latter
campaign’s neutralization of a potential threat to Assyrian rule.
However, the conflation of two separate locations in the later royal inscriptions has caused
scholars to equate Nagīte-raqqi with Nagītu and therefore mis-locate Nagīte-raqqi in the swamps of
southern Mesopotamia. Brinkman (1962, 27 n. 152); Dietrich (1970, 10, 233) and Levine (1982, 41) all
placed Nagītu somewhere on the north shore of the Persian Gulf, east of the mouth of the Tigris and
Euphrates. Brinkman (1984, 60) later suggested that Nagīte-raqqi was to be found on the far side of the
Hor al-Hammar, a large lake in the marshes of southern Iraq, which was later followed by Frame (1998-
2001, 80) and Bagg (2020a, 421-22 & 2020b, 65-66). Accounts of the sixth campaign all agree that Nagītu
and Nagītu-di’bīna (possibly “sheep-fold,” see Lidzbarski, 1915, 45 n. 1) were located near the regions of
Hilmu, Hupapanu, and Pillatu (RINAP 3/1 22: col. iv ln. 38-39; RINAP 3/2 46: 82-84). Hilmu and Pillatu
can be placed somewhere along the western Elamite border near where the Tigris and Euphrates flow into
the Persian Gulf (Bagg 2020a, 273-74, 460-61), which is why Sennacherib launched an attack on these
locations by sea during his sixth campaign.
Yet, the early annals all agree that Nagīte-raqqi was located “in the midst of the sea” rather than
on the shore. The phrase qabal tâmtim is only used in Assyrian royal inscriptions to describe distant islands
or other faraway regions only reachable by water such as Cyprus, Dilmun, the islands of Greece, or Taršiš
(Bagg, 2007, 121-24; Bagg, 2017, 602-03; RINAP 4 60:10´). Aside from Merodach-baladan, the only other
foes of Assyria to flee to “the midst of the sea” were the Sidonian rulers Lulî (RINAP 3/1 4: 32) and Abdi-
Milkuti (RINAP 4 1: col. ii ln 71-72), who both fled westwards across the Mediterranean to places
unknown.
Here etymology can provide a clue as to the identity of Nagīte-raqqi. Nagītu appears to be a
feminine form of nagû, which is generally translated “district” or “region” in Neo-Assyrian royal
inscriptions, but can take on a more specific meaning of “island” in Neo-Babylonian (CAD N1, 119, 121-
23). Contra Ungnad (1929, 197) the word raqqu is not likely to represent a shortened form of raqqatu,
“swamp, marsh” as this word is only rarely attested without the feminine ending -atu, and then only from
the late Neo-Babylonian period onwards (CAD R, 170). A more likely translation is raqqu, “turtle,” as is
attested in a wide variety of texts from the Old Akkadian period onwards (CAD R, 172-73; Grayson and
Novotny in RINAP 3/1 p. 98 n. iv 33´). Sennacherib’s annalistic inscriptions are inconsistent in their
application of determinatives to Nagīte-raqqi: the earliest version from 697 BC does not use any
determinatives at all (RINAP 3/1 15: col. iv ln. 33´). Some later versions use KUR (RINAP 3/1 17: col. iv
ln. 4), while copies of the annals dating after Sennacherib’s sixth campaign of 694 use URU (RINAP 3/1
22: col. iii ln. 64), likely to harmonize with the accounts of the sixth campaign against Nagītu. It should
not therefore be assumed that Nagīte-raqqi was an inhabited place.
While raqqu and its Sumerian equivalent BA.AL.GI were used to describe a wide variety of turtles
(Farber, 1974), a location in the midst of the sea called “turtle island” most likely refers to any of the remote
coral islands in the northern Persian Gulf which are regularly used as nesting sites by the Green Sea Turtle

– 57 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

(Chelonia mydas) and Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata). Sea turtles in the Persian Gulf rarely
nest on the mainland, preferring to lay their eggs on remote coral islands (Miller, 2020, 208). The highest
density of turtle nests can be found on the Saudi islands of Karan, Jana, and Jurayd, each of which hosts
hundreds of turtles every year (Pilcher, 2000; al-Merghani et al, 2000). Nests have also been recorded on
the Saudi islands of Kurayn, Jurayd, and Harqus, the Kuwaiti islands of Qaruh and Umm al-Maradim, and
the Iranian island of Khark (al-Mohanna et al, 2014; Hesni et al, 2019; Mobaraki, 2020; Miller, 2020). It
is possible that other islands such as Kubbar, Farsi and al-Arabiyah also hosted nesting populations in the
past (Figure 1). No nests are recorded on Failaka, even though the waters around the island are an important
turtle feeding area (Rees et al, 2013).
The exploitation of sea turtles and their eggs for food as well as the Hawksbill for decorative
tortoiseshell is attested in archaeological and textual sources from both Mesopotamia and Arabia from the
Neolithic period onwards (Frazier, 2003, 3-6, 19-22; Moorey, 1999, 128-29; Owen, 1981, 40-43).
Zooarchaeological assemblages from the late third millennium site of Qal’at al-Bahrain indicate that an
increase in turtle consumption was correlated with increased exploitation of open water fisheries,
suggesting that turtles always primarily nested on remote islands in the Gulf (Olijdam, 2001, 196). The
migration of turtles to their nesting sites would have provided prime opportunities for fishermen to hunt
and collect their eggs.
No strong evidence exists to suggest any of these islands over the others as the identity of Nagīte-
raqqi. Khark is the only island with nesting turtles which contains fresh water, and would have been the
most likely destination if Merodach-baladan sought to continue onwards to Elam. But given that the
Assyrian royal inscriptions are our only source, and Sennacherib had no idea what became of Merodach-
baladan after 700 BC, this must remain speculative. It is also possible that he sought to flee further afield
to remain outside of Assyria’s grasp. Our last attestation of Merodach-baladan, therefore, is of the exiled
king carrying his gods to a sandy island likely visited only by fishermen, a waystation on the way to
permanent exile.

Figure 1. Map of offshore islands in the northern Persian Gulf.

References
AL-MERGHANI, M., et al, 2000, “The Green and Hawksbill Turtles in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Synopsis of Nesting
Studies 1986-1997”, Fauna of Arabia 18, p. 369-384.
AL-MOHANNA, S.Y., AL-ZAIDAN, A.S.Y, and GEORGE, P., 2014, “Green Turtles (Chelonia mydas) of the North-Western
Arabian Gulf, Kuwait: The Need for Conservation”, Aquatic Conservation 24, p. 166-178.
BAGG, A.M., 2007, Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der neuassyrischen Zeit, Teil 1: Die Levante, RGTC 7/1, Wiesbaden.

– 58 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

BAGG, A.M., 2017, Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der neuassyrischen Zeit, Teil 2: Zentralassyrien und benachbarte
Gebiete, Ägypten und die arabische Halbinsel, RGTC 7/2, Wiesbaden.
BAGG, A.M., 2020a, Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der neuassyrischen Zeit, Teil 3: Babylonien, Urarṭu und die
östlichen Gebiete, RGTC 7/3, Wiesbaden.
BAGG, A.M., 2020b, “The Unconquerable Country: The Babylonian Marshes in the Neo-Assyrian Sources”, Water
History 12, p. 57-73.
BRINKMAN, J.A., 1964, “Merodach-baladan II,” in Studies Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim, June 7, 1964, Chicago.
BRINKMAN, J.A., 1984, Prelude to Empire: Babylonian Society and Politics, 747-626 B.C., Philadelphia.
DIETRICH, M., 1970, Die Aramäer Südbabyloniens in der Sargonidenzeit (700-648), Neukirchen-Vluyn.
ELAYI, J., 2018, Sennacherib, King of Assyria, Atlanta.
FARBER, W., 1974, “Von ba und Anderen Wassertieren: testudines sargonicae?”, JCS 26 (4), p. 195-207.
FRAME, G., 1998-2001, “Nagītu”, RlA 9, Berlin, p. 80.
FRAZIER, J., 2003, “Prehistoric and Ancient Historic Interactions between Humans and Marine Turtles”, in Lutz, P.L.,
Musick, J.A., and Wyneken, J. (eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtles, Volume II, Boca Raton, FL, p. 1-38.
HESNI, M.A., 2019, “Monitoring Hawksbill Turtle Nesting Sites in Some Protected Areas from the Persian Gulf,” Acta
Oceanologica Sinica 38 (12), p. 43-51.
LEVINE, L.D., 1982, “Sennacherib’s Southern Front: 704-689 B.C.”, JCS 34 (1-2), p. 28-58.
LIDZBARSKI, M., 1915, Das Johannesbuch der Mandäer, zweiter Teil: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar, Giessen.
MILLER, J.D., 2020, “Saudi Arabia (Kingdom Of)”, in A.D. Phillott (ed.), Sea Turtles in the Middle East and South
Asia Region: MTSG Annual Regional Report 2020, p. 208-244.
MOBARAKI, A., 2020, “Iran”, in A.D. Phillott (ed.), Sea Turtles in the Middle East and South Asia Region: MTSG
Annual Regional Report 2020, p. 109-118.
MOOREY, P.R.S., 1999, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, Winona Lake, IN.
OLIJDAM, E., 2001, “Exploitation of Sea Turtles in the Early Dilmun Period (c. 2100-1900 BC),” Proceedings of the
Seminar for Arabian Studies 31, p. 195-202.
OWEN, D.I., 1981, “Of Birds, Eggs and Turtles,” ZA 71, p. 29-47.
PILCHER, N.J. 2000. “The Green Turtle, Chelonia mydas, in the Saudi Arabian Gulf”, Chelonian Conservation and
Biology 3 (4), p. 730-734.
REES, A.F. et al, 2013, “Green Turtles, Chelonia mydas, in Kuwait: Nesting and Movements”, Chelonian Conservation
and Biology 12 (1), p. 157-163.
UNGNAD, A., 1929, “Zum Sanherib-Prisma I R 37-42,” ZA 38, p. 191-200.
ZADOK, R., 1985, “Zur Geographie Babyloniens während des sargonidischen, chaldäischen, achämenidischen und
hellenistischen Zeitalters”, WO 16, p. 19-79.
Christopher W. JONES <Christopher.Jones@helsinki.fi>
University of Helsinki, Centre of Excellence in Ancient Near Eastern Empires (FINNLAND)

25) Assyrian wall-panel fragments from Bangor, Maine — Seven fragments of Assyrian wall-panels
reportedly once belonging to Bangor Theological Seminary, Maine, U.S.A., which had presumably
acquired them through a nineteenth-century missionary source, were sold in 1982-3 to Norman Hurst, a
dealer of Cambridge, Mass. He sold them in 1983 to another dealer, Carole Davenport, who sold them in
the same year to Dr Vallo Benjamin. They remained in the possession of Dr Benjamin until his death in
2021 and passed to his family. They were auctioned by Christie's, New York, in a sale of antiquities on 26
January 2023. The auction catalogue which is available on-line through the Christie's website provides
excellent photographs, in addition to the above details of provenance. I am grateful to John Russell for
further information.
The following list includes details of the fragments taken from the catalogue together with
additional deductions. The fragments were all clearly cut down from larger pieces and their thickness will
have been reduced to lessen the weight. I have assigned Bangor numbers to the fragments; some of these
diverge from the catalogue lot numbers because Christie's inserted two other Assyrian wall-panel
fragments that Dr Benjamin acquired from elsewhere into the sequence. The colours of the faces of the
fragments in the images published on-line are a range of pale browns. An image of the flat reverse of
Bangor 6 is also published. It is pale grey, as expected for the alabaster ("Mosul marble") used for most
Assyrian wall-panels of this kind, and the Bangor fragments were almost certainly all made of this same
material.
The abbreviations NP, SWP and PAN used below refer respectively to the catalogue by R. D.
Barnett, Sculptures from the North Palace of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh, London, 1976, to the

– 59 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

catalogue by R. D. Barnett et al., Sculptures from the Southwest Palace of Sennacherib at Nineveh,
London, 1998, and to J. E. Reade, Design and Destruction: The Palace of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh
(Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 34), Wien, 2022.
Bangor 1 (Lot 1). Height 19.6 cm. Price realised: $50,400.
This fragment contains part of six lines of royal inscription of Ashurnasirpal II. As indicated in Christie's catalogue, it
must have been cut from the middle of the reverse of a wall-panel from the North-West Palace, Nimrud.
Bangor 2 (Lot 2). Height 44.5 cm. Price realised: $21,420.
This fragment was apparently cut from the top right-hand corner of a wall-panel. It shows the top of a palm-tree, with
many vine tendrils; the worn area underneath may possibly show part of something worn or carried by an otherwise
missing figure. The fragment is rightly identified by Christie's catalogue as associated with BM 118914 in the British
Museum, i.e. deriving from Room E in the North Palace of Ashurbanipal, Nineveh (NP: pp. 38-39, pls XIV-XV; PAN:
p. 32). Room E contained large single-register scenes of female musicians, lions in a garden and huntsmen leading
dogs, with a background of alternating palms and pines. The exact nature and significance of these scenes remain open
to debate.
Bangor 3 (Lot 3). Width 44.4 cm. Price realised: $30,240.
This fragment was apparently cut from the top right-hand corner of a panel. It shows the top of a palm-tree, with vine-
leaves, bunches of grapes, and the ears and crest of a horse facing right. The fragment is rightly identified by Christie's
catalogue, like Bangor 2, as deriving from Room E in the North Palace, Nineveh, and as suggesting, in view of the
elaborate nature of the crest, that the king (and/or the queen?) was represented in this room.
Bangor 4 (Lot 4). Width 40.6 cm. Price realised: $69,300.
This fragment was apparently cut from the middle of a panel, at the bottom. It shows part of a shrub and all or part of
eight mostly naked dead bodies, including one decapitated. The heads, with short hair and beards, resemble those of
Elamites. The fragment is rightly identified by Christie's catalogue as associated with BM 124941 (NP: pl. XXIV) and
therefore deriving from Room I in the North Palace, Nineveh. It must have belonged to one of panels I-1 to I-4, the
lower register of which showed part of the Battle of Til-Tuba (PAN: pp. 27-29, fig. 33).
Bangor 5 (Lot 5). Length (i.e. width) given as 43.8 cm. Price realised: $69,300.
This fragment was cut from the middle of a panel, with a straight line at the top which is slanting rather than horizontal;
it has also been mounted at a slight angle. It shows a group facing left: part of a horse with a fine tasselled ornament
pulling a chariot with a 12-spoked wheel; a man on the far side of the horse, with short beard and headband knotted at
the back, holding a bow and wearing a quiver behind his shoulder; the chariot driver, probably unbearded, with
headband knotted at the back and holding bow and rein; and, on the right edge of the fragment, the forepart of a man
with a bow. The figures are not Assyrian as stated in Christie's catalogue. Instead, their dress and the wheel of the
chariot are typically Elamite. At the bottom there are a few lines suggesting water in a stream.
As noted in Christie's catalogue, there is some resemblance between this scene and another, in
Room 33 of the South-West Palace at Nineveh, which shows the installation of a new Elamite ruler at
Madaktu after the Battle of Til-Tuba (SWP: II, pl. 303). It is not a parallel but the theme may be similar. It
has been suggested that the installation of a new Elamite ruler at Hidalu was represented on or near panel
I-12 in Room I of the North Palace (PAN: p. 29, figs 33, 36). Bangor 5 could be part of this scene, with the
chariot belonging to the new Elamite ruler who would have been represented further left. It is an attractive
hypothesis because Bangor 4 does come from Room I while Bangor 2, 3, and 6 come from other rooms in
the North Palace.
Bangor 6 (Lot 8). Width 27.9 cm. Height calculated as c. 24 cm. Price realised: $11,340.
This fragment was cut roughly straight on both sides and underneath but the top slopes down from right to left. It shows
a row of four men moving left. Their feet and the tops of their heads are missing but they must have been about 27 cm
high. The man on the right has a short pointed beard, wears a short robe and is carrying a sack over his shoulder. The
others may be similar, but the details are worn.

Panel M-18 in the North Palace is largely lost but a nineteenth-century engraving of the lower part
was published in The Illustrated London News, 15 November 1856, p. 502; it is reproduced here as Fig. 1.
It includes in the middle a row of prisoners moving left with, just above them, a crack sloping down from
right to left. This engraving was made from a photograph, taken by William Boutcher for the Assyrian
Excavation Fund, which survives as a faded print. This has been published (ABP: pl. 36) but the detail
there is far from clear and an accompanying drawing is unsatisfactory. Four figures in the middle of the

– 60 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

panel, as confirmed by the original print and the engraving, combined here in Fig. 2, are the same as those
surviving in Bangor 6.
The scene shows prisoners from a campaign in Egypt, also represented on the surviving panel M-
17 which is BM 124928 in the British Museum. The prisoners on M-17 are either Egyptian civilians
carrying goods or Nubian soldiers with curly hair. The Bangor figures seem to be more Egyptians.

Fig. 1. M-18. Engraving from fresh print.

Fig 2. M-18 detail (= Bognor 6). Left: engraving. Right: scan of faded print.

The M-18 panel was destined for the Louvre according to Boutcher's plan of the palace (NP: text-
plate 7). Much of the Louvre shipment was lost in the Tigris. A fragment from the upper left survives in
Marseilles, however, and here is another from the middle. It therefore seems not unlikely that more of the
middle of M-18 was also sawn off and may survive somewhere and that only the lower row of figures,
which was then the best-preserved, was taken for the Louvre.
Bangor 7 (Lot 9). Width 28.8 cm. Price realised: $3,780.
This fragment, showing the lower part of three figures facing left, is probably from the bottom of a panel. It appears to
have a fresh break on the left, which suggests that it was once larger and included the entire body of the left-hand
figure. Maybe that part was lost during shipment to the U.S. or has yet to surface from the Bangor area or another
collection. The two figures on the right seem to be a pair. The dress of the nearer one slopes down from front to back,
indicating that he is probably an Elamite. Perhaps they were two archers shooting to the left in the Battle of Til-Tuba
scene and derived, like Bangor 4, from one of panels I-1 to I-4 in Room I of the North Palace.

– 61 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

Post-excavation history. As described by A. Cohen and S. E. Kangas, Assyrian Reliefs from the Palace of
Ashurnasirpal II, Hanover, 2010, pp. 1-45, American missionaries stationed at Mosul were given many
Assyrian wall-panels and fragments in the early 1850s by the British excavators of Nimrud and Nineveh,
for dispatch to their colleges. Much contextual and historical information was lost during the process of
dispersal, and the fragments, like those at Bangor, were liable to be neglected over time. Although the
general nature of this group was never forgotten and it was appreciated by Dr Benjamin who invited people
to view his collection, it somehow evaded academic attention until the Christie's sale. It is the largest group
of such material to reemerge for many years.
Missionaries to the Ottoman Empire from Bangor are named by C. M. Clark, History of Bangor
Theological Seminary, Boston, 1916, pp. 354-356. None of them are specifically said to have been stationed
at Mosul, but they will have known colleagues there. This is presumably how a collection was sent to
Bangor. Letters referring to the acquisition may still survive.
Bangor 1 could have been acquired at almost any time after the excavation of the North-West
Palace at Nimrud by Henry Layard in 1845. A more precise date can be suggested for the items from the
North Palace at Nineveh. Bangor 2, 3, 4, 6 and probably 5 derived from Rooms E, I and M of this palace.
These rooms were excavated by Hormuzd Rassam for the British Museum between December 1853 and
April 1854. The M-18 panel to which Bangor 6 belonged was still in position when it was photographed;
this was probably done a little before September 1854 when the set of drawings and photographs to which
it belonged was sent to London (PAN: p. 10). On 21 February 1855 William Loftus, Rassam's successor
as excavator, received instructions on how to dispose of the remaining panels from the palace before he
himself left the site in the spring of 1855 (PAN: pp. 60-61). He was authorised to give surplus pieces to
"private parties". It seems likely that all the pieces which eventually reached Bangor were given away
together at this time to one of the missionaries then in Mosul.
The Christie's sale included two other fragments of Assyrian sculpture belonging to Dr Benjamin
that are already known, as follows:
Lot 6. Fragment with Assyrian soldier facing left. Previously sold as "property of a lady" at Sotheby's, Lot
85, 10 July 1972. Sotheby's New York, Lot 222, 12 July 1993. Published: SWP: I, p. 141, no. 735; II, pl. 513. Price
realised: $119,700.
Lot 7. Fragment with Assyrian horseman riding left. Previously sold at Sotheby's, Lot 20, 13 July 1970.
Fragment from Room 70 of the South-West Palace, Nineveh. Published: SWP: I, p. 132, no. 650c; II, pls 468-469.
Price realised: $340,200.
Sixteen published cylinder seals that had also belonged to Dr Benjamin were in the same sale
(Lots 10, 11, 147-151). Items from other owners included part of a stone bowl with an Early Dynastic
inscription (Lot 143) and parts of two Late Uruk cups carved with animals in high relief (Lot 145).
Addendum. Another fragment showing a royal bodyguard, probably from the FVB series in the North
Palace, which once belonged to Boutcher, recently surfaced in Devon and was kindly presented to the
British Museum (PAN: pp. 50, 63). It is now numbered BM 2020.6006.1 and has been published by Gareth
Brereton, "Gift of an artist: an Assyrian relief fragment from Ashurbanipal's palace at Nineveh", The
British Museum Newsletter Middle East 6 (2021): pp. 42-46.
Julian Edgeworth READE <julianreade@yahoo.com>

26) Neo-Assyrian Gula cylinder seal from the collection of Ashmolean Museum1) — In the CDLI
database, an inscribed Neo-Assyrian cylinder seal can be found from the collection of Ashmolean Museum,
Oxford. Museum number of the object: AN1922.61.2) (Imprint: Pic. 1.) The seal’s physical characteristics,
inscriptions, iconographical depictions, and the imprint of the cylinder were first published by Buchanan
in the catalogue of the Ashmolean Museum.3) The inscription of the seal was studied by van Driel,
Watanabe, Collon, and Niederreiter.4) The text can be found in the 3rd volume of RIMA by Grayson. As it
can be found in the Neo-Assyrian prosopographic collection, based on its inscription, Baker identifies the
owner of the cylinder seal as Nabu-šar-uṣur, a court clerk who worked under the reign of Assyrian ruler
Adad-nirari III. (811-783 BCE).5)

– 62 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

Previous research of the cylinder seal’s iconography. From the object’s inscription, we do not get
information about the identity of the depicted sitting deity who was first identified by Dominique Collon
as the healing goddes Gula. Niederreiter examined the seal in question from an epigraphic and iconographic
point of view, with further ten cylinder seals grouped in the category of Neo-Assyrian eunuch seals, but
did not examine the iconographical aspects of the aforementioned goddess. The previous research of
AN1922.61 primarily covers the inscription of the object, but the iconographical analogues of the depicted
symbols and the individual deity have not yet been analyzed. The aim of the present study is to understand
the depiction of the deity in view of the first millenium iconographic tradition of Gula representations.

Examination of the cylinder seal’s symbols. Pic. 2. lines up the elements of the composition in the order
they can be seen on the imprint of the seal. The first element ‘A’ represents worshippers, one of whom
might be the owner of the seal in the usual manner. According to Niederreiter, the identification of the first
figure in front of the goddess (right) is problematic since his headdress cannot be recognized as a typical
Assyrian royal headdress.6) The winged solar disk ‘B’ can be understood as a symbol of the sun god Šamaš
or the Assyrian chief deity Aššur. The solar disk marked ‘E’ can also be attributed to Šamaš. The symbol
marked ‘C’ is identified by Buchanan as “hourglass shape, solid rectangle,” which – in a different position
– also appears on other first millenium Gula cylinder seals (see below). The tasseled spade on the back of
the couchant dragon ‘D’ is a symbol of the Babylonian chief deity Marduk.7) Finally, according to Collon,
the symbol ‘F’ might be the clay tablet of Gula.8)

Compositional analogues. We do not know of any similar cylinder seals that match in every detail with
the composition of AN1922.61. Among the first millenium anthropomorphic Gula cylinder seals, we do
not know of any compositions that depict two whorshippers with two anthropomorphic solar disks, tasseled
spade on a lying dragon, and of a similar representation of Gula’s clay tablet. In addition to the depiction
of the goddess, cylinder seals either with simple non-anthropomorphic or winged solar disk (E; B) and with
tasseled spade without dragon can be found on BM1295389), MS69410), O.353011), and BM8963012).
Cylinder seals with both double non-anthropomorphic solar disks and tasseled spades can be found on
BM1228413), VA0292314), and O.149915). The symbol ’C’ can also be found on the BM8952316) cylinder
seal, which in the catalogue was identified as “crudely-cut crossed-leg table” by Collon.

– 63 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

The shape of the goddess – Pic. 3. shows the possible analogues in the depictions of the healing
goddess Gula.17)
Throne, stars. – The joints of the thrones are similarly formed by traces of drillings which could
be connected afterwards with straight lines. In its number of stars, AN1922.61 has an extra asterisk behind
the throne. The arrangement of the stars is similar to Fig. 2. and 4. On AN1922.61, the rays of the bottom
two stars are missing.
Headdress, hair, clothing, divine insignias.
– Gula’s headgear is identical to Fig. 2. and
4, which is referred to in the literature as
’star-topped mingle’. The long hair behind
Gula’s neck is present in every depiction and
ends in a bore shape. On the seal in question,
the fringed robe of the goddess shows a
match with Fig. 2. and 4. The scalpel and
ring, main attributes of Gula, can also be
observed on Fig. 3. and 4. Collon drew
attention to the unique nature of the depiction
in the insignias, according to which the goddess held the ring and the scalpel in the same hand.18) Collon
does not explain this arrangement which is unlike other depictions. It is possible that the reason for this
unique composition might be rooted in the lack of space caused by the “E” disk above the goddess.
Animal. – The dog should be defined as the principal symbol of Gula. In this case, according to
Collon, to separate it from the lion, the animal’s appearance must include pointed ears, an upwardly curved
tail, and a closed mouth.19) On the seal in question, the animal’s forelegs are missing due to damage incurred
on the object. The ears and tail are similar to Fig. 2 – 4, and the position of the animal's jaw cannot be
determined. The animal under the throne was initially identified by Buchanan as a lion and later, by Collon,
as a dog. In the study, we agree with Collon since both the composition and the individual divine attributes
refer to the persona of Gula.
Conclusions. Based on the analysis above the study proved that in its composition AN1922.61 shows
partial resemblance with the first millenium Gula cylinder seals’. The unusual appearance of the dual
anthropomorhic solar disks and the geometrical shapes widen the Gula cylinders’ compositional typology,
which need further research in the future to find analogues with similar depictions. The individual depiction
of the goddess shows agreement with the goddess’s first millenium miniature anthropomorphic
iconography, based on the shape of Gula and her insignias, however, the number of the stars (including the
unfinished bottom two stars) and the unusual representation of the scalpel and the ring in the same hand
makes the depiction outstanding, which can be also a subject of the future Gula iconography researches.
Notes
1. I would like to express my gratitude for Dr. Paul Collins, curator of the Ancient Near East Collection of
Ashmolean Museum.
2. Buchanan 1966. pp 114.
3. Provenance: From the collection of Rev. T. R. Hodgson, bought from Sulaymānīyah. Material: banded
light to dark brown chipped agate. Height = 35.6 mm; Diam. = 16 mm
4. Grayson 1996. (RIMA) pp 237. A0.104.2015; van Driel 1981 pp 271; Watanabe 1993 pp 116. Nr. 6.6;
Collon 2005 pp 129. no. 554; Niederreiter 2015 pp 139. Nr. 4
5. Baker 2001 pp 874.
6. Niederreiter 2015. pp 130.
7. Black, Green 1992; Marduk: pp 128-129; Solar disc: pp 168; Winged disc: pp 185-186.
8. Collon 1994. pp 44.
9. British Museum, Collon 2001, pp 123; Nr. 234.
10. The Morgan Library and Museum, Morgan 1909, Nr. 170.
11. Royal Museum of History and Art, Niederreiter 2020, pp 161; Nr. 64.

– 64 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

12. British Museum, Collon 2001, pp 124; Nr. 235; Gula standig
13. British Museum, Collon 2001, pp 123; Nr. 233.
14. Vorderasiatisches Museum, Moortgat 1940; pp 144; Nr. 656; On the depiction besides Gula, another
antropomorphic deity can be found.
15. Royal Museum of History and Art, Niederreiter 2020, pp 163. Nr. 65
16. British Museum, Collon 2001. pp 124; Nr. 236; Gula standing
17. Fig. 2; 3; 4. = Collon 2001. pp 123-124.
18. Collon 1994. pp 44.
19. For Gula’s dog symbols see: FUHR 1977; BLACK, GREEN 1992. pp 70; ORNAN 2004; BÖCK 2014. For
mesopotamian deities’s animal symbols see: GRONEBERG 2000; WATANABE 2002.

Bibliography
BAKER, H. D. 2001 “Nabû-šarru-uṣur”, in H. D. Baker (ed.), PNA II: L–N, Helsinki, 874–879.
BLACK, J., GREEN, A. 1992 Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia – An Illustrated Dictionary, London.
BÖCK, B. 2014 The Healing Goddess Gula – Towards and Understanding of Ancient Babylonian Medicine,
CHANE 67, Leiden.
BUCHANAN, B. 1966, Catalogue of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the Ashmolean Museum Vol. 1 Cylinder Seals, Oxford.
COLLON, D. 1994 “Neo-Assyrian Gula in the British Museum” in Cholidis, N et al. (eds.), Beschreiben und Deuten in
der Archäologie des Alten Orients, Festschrift für Ruth Mayer-Opificius mit Beiträgen von
Freunden und Schülern (Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients, 4), 43–48, Münster.
COLLON, D. 2001 Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum, Cylinder Seals V: Neo-Assyrian and
Neo-Babylonian Periods, London
COLLON, D. 2005 First impression, Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East, Chicago.
VAN DRIEL, G. 1981 “Wine Lists and Beyond?”, BiOr 38, 259–271.
GRAYSON, A. K. 1996 Assyrian Ruler of the Early First Millenium BC II (858-745 BC) RIMA 3, Toronto.
FUHR, I. 1977 “Der Hund als Begleittier der Göttin Gula und anderer Heilgottheiten”, In: Isin – Išān Bahrīyāṭ I. Die
Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1973-1974, Munich, 135–145
GRONEBERG, B. 2000 “Tiere als Symbole von Göttern in den frühen geschichtlichen Epochen Mesopotamiens: Von
der altsumerischen Zeit bis zum Ende der altbabylonischen Zeit”, In: Les animaux et les hommes
dans le monde syro-mésopotamien aux époques historiques, Lyon, 283–320.
MOORTGAT, A. 1940 Vorderasiatisches Rollsiegel, Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Steinschneidekunst, Berlin.
MORGAN, J. PIERPONT 1909 Cylinders and other ancient oriental seals in the library of J. Pierpont Morgan, New York.
NIEDERREITER, Z. 2015 “Cylinder Seals of Eleven Eunuchs (ša rēši officials) – A Study on Glyptics Dated to the Reign
of Adad-Nerari III”, In: N. N. May, S. Svärd (eds.), Change in Neo-Assyrian Imperial
Administration: Evolution and Revolution, SAAB XXI, 117-156.
NIEDERREITER, Z. 2020 Catalogue of the Cylinder seals in the Royal Museum of Art and History. I-II, Neo Assyrian
and Neo-Babylonian Periods (circa 1000-500 B.C), Eötvös Loránd University
ORNAN, T. 2004 “The Goddess Gula and Her Dog”, Israel Museum Studies in Archaeology 3, 13–30, Tel-Aviv
WATANABE, K. 1992 “Nabû-uṣallah, Statthalter Sargons II in Tam(a)nūna, BaM 23, 1992, 365; 4.1.7; plate 71/b.
WATANABE, K. 1993 “Neuassyrische Siegellegenden”, Orient 29, 109–138.
WATANABE, C. E. 2002 Animal Symbolism in Mesopotamia. A Contextual Approach, Vienna.
Dániel LIGETI <dani.ligeti@gmail.com>

27) Who is the Lord-of-Šāṭir? — In the following note we would like to propose an identification for the
main deity of the city of Šāṭir, on the basis of a new understanding of the Nippur Compendium (GEORGE
1992: 143-162). We will argue that the main deity of Šāṭir, also known as Lord-of-Šāṭir (dbēl ša šāṭirki), is
Erimabinutuku, a deified weapon of Ninurta.
The Lord-of-Šāṭir appears in several 5th century BCE texts from the city of Šāṭir, which was
situated to the north of Uruk, in the region of Bīt-Amukānu (TÉBR 32; TÉBR 34; TÉBR 35). Pertinent
textual information from the second half of the 5th century BCE suggests that he was worshipped in a
temple called Edubba (‘the house of tablets’, see TÉBR 35). The wording Lord-of-Šāṭir, is not unusual, for
we know of a group of divinities, whose names or titles are formulated in the very same way, i.e. ‘lord of
(my) city + of place name’ (BEAULIEU 2003: 334).1) Several divine designations of this type, the so-called
‘dieu topique’, are known from the Chaldean regions of Babylonia (ZADOK 2021: 3715), but the
phenomenon is not limited to these regions. Moreover, Lord-of-Šāṭir, which is alternately spelled as den šá
šá-ṭirki (TÉBR 35), den šá šá-ṭir₄ki (TÉBR 34) and den šá sá.di.erimki (TÉBR 32) in three 5th century Šāṭir

– 65 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

texts, seems to be more of an epithet than a divine name; the god’s actual name does not appear in these
texts, nor in any other legal or administrative text from the late Achaemenid period. However, a compilation
of esoterica, commonly referred to as the Nippur Compendium (GEORGE 1992: 143-162), will shed some
light on the matter.
The Nippur Compendium (nibruki ní.bi.ta dù.a) is known primarily from two late Babylonian
manuscripts (IM 44150; IM 76975) with the same structure and content, and three additional, smaller
tablets, two of which come from Nineveh (K 2892+ K 8397; K 10062) and the third one is a late Babylonian
excerpt tablet (BM 38413, GEORGE 1992: 145-146).2) The text begins with a listing of the names and titles
for the city of Nippur and its main temple, Ekur, followed by a list of deities. This list, in which each deity
is represented as ‘lord of (my) city + of place name', occurs only in the two late Babylonian manuscripts,
and is of particular interest to our case as it contains a series of ‘dieux topiques’ and their localities. Among
the legible place names in the list, we find the lords of Borsippa and Dēr, but also deities of smaller
settlements in the region between Uruk and Nippur, such as the lords of Šalammu and Kār-Ninurta
(GEORGE 1992: 150: 19’; 21’; 24’).3) Interestingly, the list happens to mention a deity by the name of
Erimabinutuku, who is designated as the ‘dieu topique’ (bēl-āliya) of a place named urusá.sá.érim (GEORGE
1992: §7, 22’). We suggest to slightly emend the reading of the toponym to sá.di.érim (sá=di), because this
spelling (sá.di.érim) stands for the city of Šāṭir, as demonstrated by the late 5th century BCE text TÉBR 32
(ll. 11 and 14).
As noted earlier, the ‘dieux topiques' section in the Nippur Compendium, refers not only to Šāṭir,
but also to several other sites in the region between Nippur and Uruk, such as Šalammu and Kār-Ninurta,
which, like Šāṭir, were still inhabited in the 5th century BCE. Thus, our suggestion matches the evidence in
the section on ‘dieux topiques' in the Nippur Compendium in more than one way: they share the same
spelling for Šāṭir (sá.di.érim), the same geographical horizon, and the same chronological framework.
If we come back to the question of the identity of Lord-of-Šāṭir, it is now clear that according to
the Nippur Compendium the deity Erimabinutuku is the Lord-of-Šāṭir. Despite the scarcity in textual
sources regarding Erimabinutuku, the Sumerian composition Angim, allows us a better understanding of
his nature. According to Angim, Erimabinutuku, the worshipped entity of Šāṭir, is named after one of
Ninurta’s divine weapons known ‘to have established the people in heaven and earth' (COOPER 1978: 82,
146; GEORGE 1992: 447).
Notes
1. See, for example, the case of ‘Bēl-ālīya-ša-Šarrabānu’(‘lord-of-my-city-of-Šarrabānu’, Baker 2004:
127:128). The city was also located in Bīt-Amukānu.
2. It should be mentioned that the texts from Nineveh do not record the main sections of the texts which deal
with Nippur and its cultic landscape, but only the sections dealing with the days of the month and the Babylonian
months and festivals. After these sections the texts from Nineveh diverge from the Babylonian recension and record a
section on Asakku demons and the Sons of Enlil, while the Babylonian texts detail the divine directory of Nippur and
the offerings at the Ekur temple (George 1992: 143-145). Most importantly, the texts from Nineveh do not record the
section on deities connected with specific cities, which only occurs in late Babylonian sources.
3. For Kār-Ninurta and Šalammu see the following texts, from the Murašû archive: IMT 112; IMT 68, dated
in the late 5th century BCE.

Bibliography
BAKER, H. 2004. The Archive of the Nappāḫu Family. Vienna.
BEAULIEU, P. A. 2003. The Pantheon of Uruk During the Neo-Babylonian Period. CM 23. Leiden.
COOPER, J. S. 1978. The Return of Ninurta to Nippur. Rome.
GEORGE, A. R. 1992. Babylonian Topographical Texts. Leuven.
TÉBR = JOANNÈS, F. 1982. Textes économiques de la Babylonie récente (TÉBR). Paris.
Kathleen ABRAHAM <kathleen.abraham@kuleuven.be>
Peter ZILBERG <peter.zilberg@mail.huji.ac.il>

28) Traces of Administrative Reform in the Hebrew and Aramaic Epigraphs of the Al-Yahudu and
Related Tablets1) — The dossiers of al-Yahudu and related tablets continue to be a point of historical
curiosity. After the publication of eleven tablets (Joannès and Lemaire 1996; Joannès and Lemaire 1999;

– 66 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

Abraham 2006) followed by the large collection in 2014 in the volume CUSAS 28 (C), the long-awaited
group of texts from the Schøyen collection is now published, BaAr 6 (B). I was asked to edit the remaining
unpublished Northwest Semitic epigraphs on the tablets in that collection (Moore in Wunsch 2023), and
the opportunity afforded me a chance to collate from photographs all the previously published epigraphs
as well. This short note is a reflection on that data. I argue here that the epigraphs on these tablets show,
that among Northwest Semitic administrators working in Mesopotamia, particularly the environs of
Nippur, the rise of Cyrus brought about a traceable administrative reform.
Aramaic epigraphs on cuneiform tablets are a long known but sometimes poorly understood genre
of administrative activity in ancient Mesopotamia. To my knowledge, they appear (so far) only on
documentary textual evidence and on tablets pertaining to legal transactions. The epigraphs have been
under-appreciated for the simple fact that they represent the last traceable layer of a tablet’s administrative
history, particularly for dossiers of tablets that are not found in situ or have a poorly documented
archaeological history.
The al-Yahudu and related tablets afford us a unique opportunity to study the administrative
practice and historical circumstances of epigraphic writing because, in addition to the expected Aramaic
epigraphs one finds Hebrew epigraphs on a few tablets. The presence of Hebrew epigraphs indicates, as
André Lemaire has rightly observed, the “Judaean exiles in and around al-Yahudu kept their Hebrew
culture, at least for several tens of years after the Exile, even though they might use more and more Aramaic
for their daily life, as well as cuneiform Neo-Babylonian for their juridical documents and official contracts
with the Babylonian administration” (2015: 45). So far only three Hebrew epigraphs survive on the known
tablets C1, C10, and B1. The epigraph on C10 was first identified by its editors Laurie Pearce and Cornelia
Wunsch as Hebrew due to the form of the Northwest Semitic script used on the tablet. In 2015, Lemaire
published the Hebrew epigraph of B1, but not its cuneiform. This tablet clearly indicates that not only the
script but the language was Hebrew because it uses the Hebrew lexeme BN rather than the Aramaic lexeme
BR for “son.” I identified the epigraph on C1 as written in the Hebrew script during my collation of the
tablet. The original editors struggled to read C1’s difficult epigraph, but I propose ŠMD⸢N⸣ “Šumiddi⸢n⸣”.
All three Hebrew epigraphs were incised on the tablets while their clay was still plastic, and this indicates
that the Hebrew administrator was not only archiving each tablet, but present at the tablet's composition.2)
In each case, the Babylonian scribe produced a legally binding document, while working alongside a
Hebrew administrator who facilitated the practicalities of the document's transaction.
Alongside these three meager tablets are sixteen more which contain Aramaic epigraphs. Two of
those sixteen (C40 and C71B) are written in ink. Such an administrative act must have taken place after
the tablet had reasonably dried, but this could have occurred quickly in the Mesopotamian sun, even during
the fall months in which these two tablets were written (Kislīmu). It is possible that many more tablets
contained epigraphs written in ink that are now lost. The remaining fourteen Aramaic epigraphs were
incised on the tablets and indicate, like the Hebrew incised epigraphs, that Aramaic administrators
complemented and completed the efforts of the Babylonian scribe.
These nineteen epigraphs represent less than 10% of the known number of al-Yahudu and related
tablets and while the dataset is not large, a remarkable feature of the epigraphs stand out. The three Hebrew
tablets date to the Neo-Babylonian period while the sixteen Aramaic epigraphs date to the Persian period
starting with C102, which dates to 5.i.1 Cyr (538 BCE). Although the data are few, these epigraphs
currently suggests that a reform occurred among the administrators at al-Yahudu during the very beginning
of Cyrus's first year in power. This continued until the end of the dossiers, for which the latest tablet also
bears an Aramaic epigraph, C53, 25.v.9 Xer (477 BCE). The three Hebrew epigraphs are dated to C1,
20.i.33 Neb (572 BCE); B1, 7.ix.38 Neb (567 BCE); and C10, 23.x.6 Nab (550 BCE). It is possible that
during the twelve year gap between the latest Hebrew epigraph (550 BCE) and Cyrus's first year a gradual
shift from a Hebrew administration to an Aramaic administration occurred in the al-Yahudu community,
and the evidence for this is simply missing. But as it stands, it seems as though the shift was more sudden.
This brings up many research questions most of which one can merely speculate about given the current
evidence. Nonetheless, for historical purposes it is worth asking, even if we fully cannot answer: what were

– 67 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

the factors that led to this shift? Was this a response to a reform across the imperial administration? Was
this an imperial imposition in rural communities of state dependents like al-Yahudu?
While two decades ago scholarship focused largely on the reform of Xerxes in Mesopotamia in
the Persian period (Waerzeggers 2003), some have begun to look for distinctions in the closely related
Neo-Babylonian and Persian period evidence (e.g., Jursa 2011; Kleber 2022). Of particular interest is a
recent study by Bernhard Schneider, who argues the imperial transition produced “some upheavals among
the high-ranking officials in the course of the transition” at Nippur in particular (2022: 116). Like the
findings of Schneider's archaeological assessment, it seems that these humble epigraphs also suggest that
imperial transfer from the Neo-Babylonians to the Persians either encouraged, incentivized, or forced
administrators working with state dependents to conduct their activity in Aramaic. One could reasonably
hypothesize that this is owed to administrative overhaul that replaced local Hebrew administrators in al-
Yahudu with Aramaic administrators. One wonders if the replacement was part of a relocation of outside
Aramaic administrators into al-Yahudu, and if so, was this a replacement of native administrators with
imperially selected administrators? A similar phenomenon of the empire supplanting a high-level local
administrator within a lucrative economic system has already been observed by scholars of both Mesopo-
tamian (MacGinnis 2008: 87-99) and Egyptian3) large temple economies, particularly during the reign of
Darius I, though the practice may have dated earlier. Alternatively, the Hebrew speaking community may
have become culturalized into the Aramaic speaking setting of Babylonia, and the state dependents sought
a closer connection to their imperial providers by working in Aramaic. Along these lines one wonders if it
is coincidence that the dekû of al-Yahudu first appears on a tablet from the end of Cyrus's first year (C83,
27.ix.1 Cyr). His Judean name Yāma-izrī, identifies him as a community native (C: p. 229) with the role
of the community tax collector (compare Stolper 1985: 83). So whether the evidence from the epigraphs
suggests imposed reform, such as that which occurred at Nippur and in large temple economies, or a local
cultural response, it seems that the shift in imperial power was felt in the rural administration of at least
one community of state dependents in Mesopotamia at the dawn of the Persian period.
Notes
1. This study was made possible by the DFG grant “Judeans/Arameans at Elephantine: Their Social and
Economic Status in Light of New Persian Period Texts from Egypt and Babylonia” (Project Number 432563380).
2. Currently, I assume, as do others, that the Babylonian scribes named on the tablets were not the same
administrators who wrote the Hebrew and Aramaic epigraphs. That said, those with Babylonian names can bear the
title of sēpiru “alphabetic scribe,” as for instance, Šum-iddin (ᵐᴍᴜ-ᴍᴜ) known from a Murašû tablet (CBS 12922). See
Bloch 2018: 59-66 and Stolper 1985: no. 41: 5 (pp. 191, 251).
3. See the often sited Pherendates Correspondences (493-492 BCE), particularly Pap. Ber. P. 13540. For an
accessible translation see Martin in Porten et al, no. C2.

Bibliography
ABRAHAM, K. 2006. “West Semitic and Judean Brides in Cuneiform Sources from the Sixth Century BCE: New
Evidence from a Marriage Contract from Āl-Yahudu.” AfO 51: 198-219.
BLOCH, Y. 2018. Alphabet Scribes in the Land of Cuneiform: Sēpiru Professionals in Mesopotamia in the Neo-
Babylonian and Achaemenid Periods. Gorgias Studies in the Ancient Near East 11. Piscataway.
JOANNÈS, F. and A. LEMAIRE. 1999. “Trois tablettes cunéiform à l’onomastique Ouest-Sémitique (Collection Sh.
Moussaieff).” Transeuphratène 17: 17-34.
JOANNÈS, F. and A. LEMAIRE. 1996. “Contrats babyloniens d’époque achéménide du Bît-Abî Râm avec une épigraphe
araméenne.” RA 90, no 1: 41-60.
JURSA, M. 2011. “Taxation and Service Obligations in Babylonia from Nebuchadnezzar to Darius and the Evidence
for Darius' Tax Reform.” In: R. Rollinger, B. Truschnegg, and R. Bichler (eds.), Herodot und das
Persische Weltreich …, Classica et Orientalia 3. Wiesbaden, 431-448.
LEMAIRE, A. 2015. Levantine Epigraphy and History in the Achaemenid Period (539-332 BCE). Schweich Lectures
on Biblical Archaeology 2013. Oxford.
KLEBER, K. (ed.). 2021. Taxation in the Achaemenid Empire. Classica et Orientalia 26. Wiesbaden.
MACGINNIS, J. 2008. “A Judgment of Darius the King.” JCS 60: 87-99.
MOORE, J. D. 2022. “The Aramaic and Hebrew Epigraphs on the Tablets in and around Iahūd.” In C. Wunsch, Judaeans
by the Waters of Babylon. BaAr 6. Dresden, 371-382.
PEARCE, L. E. and C. WUNSCH. 2014. Documents of Judean Exiles and West Semites in Babylonia in the Collection
of David Sofer. CUSAS 28. Bethesda, Maryland.

– 68 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

PORTEN, B. with contributions by J. J. FARBER, C. MARTIN, G. VITTMANN, L. S. MACCOULL, and S. CLACKSON. 2011.
The Elephantine Papyri in English: Three Millennia of Cross-Cultural Continuity and Change.
Second revised edition. DMOA 22. Atlanta.
SCHNEIDER, B. 2022. “Tracing Regime Change during the Transition from the Neo-Babylonian to the Achaemenid
Empire at Nippur: Reconstruction of Archives Excavated in 1889.” Asia Anteriore Antica: JANEC
4: 115-134. https://doi.org/10.36253/asiana-1576
STOLPER, M. W. 1985. Entrepreneurs and Empire: The Murašû Archive, the Murašû Firm, and Persian Rule in
Babylonia. PIHANS 54. Istanbul.
WAERZEGGERS, C. 2003. “The Babylonian Revolts Against Xerxes and the ‘End of Archives.’” AfO 50: 150-173.
WUNSCH, C. with contributions by J. D. MOORE and L. PEARCE. 2023. Judaeans by the Waters of Babylon New
Historical Evidence in Cuneiform Sources from Rural Babylonia. BaAr 6. Dresden.
James D. MOORE <james.moore@hu-berlin.de>
Humboldt Universität zu Berlin (GERMANY)

29) Une mention de Dura-Europos sous le règne de Darius Ier ?* — Dans une note brève publiée en
20201), E. Frahm a proposé – avec les réserves méthodologiques d'usage – un rapprochement entre les
toponymes d'époque paléo-babylonienne tardive et médio-assyrienne Duara – Damara et le nom de Doura-
(Europos)2). Il semble qu'on puisse ajouter un élément supplémentaire à cette hypothèse séduisante, que
nous fournit le texte de Berlin VS 3 159 (= VAT 11)3). Celui-ci a été rédigé en juin 487 (mois de simânu
de l'an 35 de Darius Ier) dans la ville appelée uru da-mar4) à lire « Damar/Dawar ».
Ce texte a déjà fait l'objet de plusieurs études à cause de la mention de deux personnages portant
des noms iraniens, Nubagazu (*nava-gaza) et Šatam/baksu (*š(y)āti-baxša/vaxša)5) et en raison de sa
référence à la « loi du roi » (dāti šarri)6). La ville de Damar elle-même est considérée comme non
localisable et n'a pas fait l'objet de commentaire particulier.
Le document émane d'une autorité administrative qui enregistre une plainte déposée7) par un
dénommé Nabû-ittannu/Bêl-id[din](?) à propos d'un droit de péage fluvial (miksu) qu'il a acquitté sur une
cargaison de céréales (orge, épeautre) et de cresson-sahlu.
VS 3 159, ll. 1-5
1. mi-ik-su šá 17 gur še-bar 3 gur,3.0.0 zíz-àm (Concernant) la taxe-miksu de 17 kurru d'orge,
3,3.0.0 kurru d'épeautre,
2. 0,2.2.0 sah-le-e šá Idnà-it-tan-nu a-šú šá Iden-[mu ina 0,2.2.0 kurru de cresson, que Nabû-ittannu, fils de
igi(?)] Bêl-[iddin (?), devant]
3. I
šá-ta-ba-ak-su u Inu-ba-ga-zu lú gal-é šá ⸢lú?⸣ [……] Šatabaksu et Nubagazu, l'intendant du [………]
4. ina é ka-a-ri šá i₇ {i₇}!? ⸢x⸣ ú-še-ti-qu dans le bâtiment du péage du fleuve/canal [……], a
fait passer
5. mi-ik-su a-na é-lugal it-tan-nu (et) (pour lesquels) il a versé la taxe au Palais,

Mais son paiement aurait été enregistré par erreur au nom d'un quasi homonyme, un certain Bêl-
ittannu/Nergal-êṭir//Saggilaia. S'il ne peut apporter les preuves de cette erreur, Nabû-ittannu devra payer
le péage conformément à la loi royale (l. 10-11: akī dāti šarri miksu ana bīt šarri inamdin).
Le rapprochement Damar/Dawar avec les graphies Damara et Duara (> Dūra) qu'a enregistrées
E. Frahm ne paraît pas illégitime. On pourrait donc considérer que VS 3 159 a été rédigé à Doura-(Europos),
à la fin du règne de Darius Ier, et les données que fournit ce texte apportent alors plusieurs renseignements
intéressants:
– il y a aurait eu, sur l'Euphrate, à la hauteur du site de Doura un «bureau fluvial» (bīt kāri) où les bateliers
devaient acquitter un péage-miksu sur leur cargaison. Ce péage était perçu au profit du Palais (bīt šarri) et le paiement
faisait l'objet d'un enregistrement 8). C'est donc l'administration royale qui gérait ce poste de péage, et il n'est pas
étonnant que les deux personnes citées à la l. 4 portent des noms iraniens. De même, c'est la « loi du roi » qui s'applique
ici, et non la coutume locale ou le règlement d'une institution religieuse.
– la documentation de Mari du 18ème siècle atteste de la perception sur l'Euphrate, à Terqa, en amont de Mari,
de droits de péage sur les cargaisons venant de l'ouest (huile d'olive et vin) et sur du commerce local (pierre, bitume,
grain)9). Ici aussi, ce sont des céréales qui sont taxées et la question se pose de savoir d'où elles proviennent et à qui
elles étaient destinées. Or, dans leur article consacré aux domaines agricoles de l'Ebabbar de Sippar localisés dans la

– 69 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

vallée du Habur, M. Jursa et K. Wagensonner montrent que ceux-ci fournissaient au temple de Šamaš des produits
agricoles et du vin10). Le dossier date surtout du règne de Nabonide, mais compte aussi un texte daté de Darius Ier11),
ce qui indique que l'exploitation agricole de la vallée du Habur a continué sous les premiers Achéménides, et peut
avoir concerné des terres de l'Ebabbar et d'autres temples de Babylonie, ainsi que, probablement, des terres royales.
Mais le transport des produits agricoles issus de ces domaines ne présentait d'intérêt que s'il s'effectuait par bateau en
réduisant au maximum les frais de transport, et le cas évoqué dans VS 3 159 pourrait entrer dans ce cadre.
– VS 3 159 (= VAT 11) appartient à la « Sammlung Maimon » de Berlin, dont la plus grande partie est
composée de textes issus des archives de l’Ebabbar de Sippar12). Mais cette collection compte aussi des textes de Dilbat
et quelques textes de Babylone. Il est donc difficile d'attribuer le texte à une archive précise, même si l'Ebabbar paraît
être un bon candidat13). La cargaison de Bêl-ittannu pourrait donc avoir été destinée au temple de Šamaš. Cependant
l'affaire peut aussi s'inscrire dans un cadre purement privé, car il n'est fait mention que de l'administration royale dans
ce texte, et pas de celle du temple. De plus, les cargaisons appartenant aux temples de Babylonie n'étaient en général
pas taxées par l'administration royale.
– la localisation d'un péage fluvial à Damar, s'il s'agit bien de Doura-Europos, n'est pas sans rappeler celle
du péage fluvial d'Opis, attesté par les archives des Murašû (PBS 2/1, 140) sous le règne de Darius II, mais où l'on
trouvait, dès le règne de Nabuchodonosor II, un « chef du port »14). Le péage d'Opis/Upiya était situé sur le Tigre juste
en aval du confluent entre la Diyala et le fleuve et collectait les produits venus du plateau iranien par la vallée de la
Diyala et la production agricole propre de celle-ci. De même, le poste de péage installé à Damar/Doura était en mesure
de contrôler le flux venu de l'Euphrate et de son affluent le Habur.
Un dernier élément peut être souligné: comme le note P. Clancier15), la conquête achéménide a
profondément redessiné la carte géopolitique du Proche-Orient, en particulier dans la vallée de l'Euphrate.
De nombreux sites ont cessé d'être habités, cependant que d'autres émergeaient. Même si la partie
« syrienne » du cours de l'Euphrate nous reste très mal connue au 6ème siècle, on constate, avec cette
mention possible de Damar/Doura-(Europos) et celle, déjà assurée de Tapsuhu = Thapsaque16), que la
géographie de l'époque achéménide tardive et de l'époque hellénistique s'y met progressivement en place
dès le règne de Darius Ier.
Notes
*Mes vifs remerciements vont à E. Frahm et M. Jursa, qui ont relu une première version de cette note, pour
leurs commentaires et suggestions.
1. FRAHM 2020. Comme me le signale E. Frahm, la question de l'étymologie du toponyme Duara a été reprise
en détail par C. Hess (Hess 2021) p. 313-317 qui le met en rapport avec une racine d-w-r désignant un site enclos.
2. Pour la proposition d'interprétation du toponyme da-[m]a-raki, sur une tablette du «royaume de Hana»,
comme pouvant être le nom ancien de Doura-Europos, cf. CHARPIN 2002 p. 92.
3. Cf. l'édition de VS 3 159 sur le site achemenet.com.
4. VS 3 159:17. C'est la seule mention connue de ce toponyme dans la documentation néo-babylonienne,
enregistrée sous la forme «Damar» dans RGTC 8 p. 116.
5. TAVERNIER 1999, avec la bibliographie antérieure.
6. DÉMARE-LAFONT 2006, note 37.
7. L. 6: i-di-nu ina ma-har lú di-ku₅-meš. i-di-nu est compris comme une apocope de ina dīnu.
8. L. 7: ú-šá-az-zi-zu-u’; l. 9: [ki-i l]a ul!-<ta>!-az!(ZA)-zi-zu-u’. Sur cet emploi du verbe izuzzu cf. WESZELI 2005.
9. DURAND 2000, p. 25-39 («Le service des douanes de Mari») et p. 40-60 («Les transports par eau»).
10. JURSA et WAGENSONNER 2014.
11. CT 55 436: cf. JURSA et WAGENSONNER 2014, op. cit. p. 116.
12. JURSA 1999, p. 6-7.
13. Notons que le premier témoin Erībaia, fils de Padaia, descend de la famille du Prêtre de Šamaš, bien
attestée à Sippar. Mais les noms des autres personnes mentionnées dans le texte ne permettent pas d'en savoir plus.
14. rab kār(i) ša Upiya (Nbk 365:14)
15. CLANCIER 2020, p. 505.
16. GRASLIN et LEMAIRE 2004.

Bibliographie
CHARPIN, D. 2002, « Chroniques du Moyen-Euphrate 1. Le “royaume de Hana”: textes et histoire », RA 96, p. 61-92.

– 70 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

CLANCIER, P. 2020, À l’ombre des grandes puissances de Mésopotamie: une histoire du Suhu à l’époque néo-
assyrienne, CHANE 114, Leiden – Boston, 2020.
DÉMARE-LAFONT, S. 2006, « dātu ša šarri. La “loi du roi” dans la Babylonie achéménide et séleucide », Droits et
Cultures 52, 2006, Iran et Occident. Hommage à Kasra Vafadari, p. 19-26.
DURAND, J.-M. 2000, Documents épistolaires du Palais de Mari, Tome III, LAPO 18, Paris.
FRAHM, E., 2020, « Dūr-Katlimmu, an Alleged Neo-Assyrian Library Text, Ḫana, and the Early History of Dura-
Europos », NABU 2020/17.
GRASLIN, L. et LEMAIRE, A. 2004, « Tapsuhu-Thapsaque », NABU 2004/55.
HESS, C. W., 2021, « Etymologisches zu mittelassyrisch Duara », in H. Kühne (éd.), Die Zitadelle von Dūr-Katlimmu
in mittel- und neuassyrischer Zeit, BATSH 12, Wiesbaden, p. 313–317.
JURSA, M. 1999, Das Archiv des Bêl-rêmanni, Istanbul, 1999.
JURSA, M. et WAGENSONNER, K. 2014, « The Estates of Šamaš on the Ḫābūr », in M. Kozuh et al. (dir.), Extraction
and Control. Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper, Chicago, p. 109-130.
TAVERNIER, J. 1999, « The Iranian name Sá-ta-b/ma-ak-su », NABU 1999/87.
WESZELI, M. 2005, « Zur Buchführung in Babylonien oder erneut zu ušazzaz(ma) », WZKM 95, 2005, p. 3476-385.
Francis JOANNÈS < francis.joannes@gmail.com>

30) Bagazuštu, an Egyptian in Achaemenid Babylonia — A document (RA 90, 48-50)1) from Babylon
and the 26th regnal year of Darius I (= 496 BCE) refers to Bagazuštu (Iba-ga-’a-zu-uš-tu-u’), “the
Egyptian” (lú mi-ṣir-a-a), “royal chamberlain” (lú sag lugal lú ú-ma-as-ta-ar-ba-ra-’a), and son of
Marḫarpu (Ima-ar-ḫa-ár-pu), as renting out 45 kur (= 60 ha) arable land and fields of the “bow domain”
(bīt qašti) to Zababa-šar-uṣur, son of Nabȗ-zēr-iddin, for a duration of four years in return for a yearly
payment (to be delivered at the quay of Babylon) of 60 kur (= 10 800 litres) grain. The text also stipulates
when the land rental begins, states that both parties have received a copy of the agreement, and that anyone
who later contest the agreement will have to pay a fine of five mina of silver. Nine witnesses and the scribe
are then mentioned, followed by a date and the seal of Bagazuštu.
The document is interesting, for various reasons. The information gained from the text about land
rental procedures in Achaemenid Babylonia aside, the phenomenon of an Egyptian with an Iranian name
in a Mesopotamian document, an Egyptian who also was a high official within the Persian imperial
administrative structure, is highly noteworthy. As mentioned, Bagazuštu is an Iranian name. According to
M.A. DANDAMAYEV (1992, 62-63) and J. TAVERNIER (2007, 144), it is Iranian-Median and means “loved
by God”. The name of his father, Marḫarpu, is probably Egyptian, although a precise identification with a
specific Egyptian name remains to be made (HACKL and JURSA 2015, 167-168). The title of Bagazuštu,
namely ša rēš šarri ustarbara, indicates that he was a powerful figure in Babylonia of Achaemenid times.2)
Furthermore, he evidently was in the possession of substantial areas of lands and fields.
It is a matter of speculation concerning why Bagazuštu adopted an Iranian name (1) and how he
ended up in Babylonia, supposedly as an already trained professional (2).
Trying to answer the first question, Bagazuštu’s adoption of an Iranian name may be seen as him
signalling that he was intent on a career within the bureaucratic structure of the Achaemenid empire. As
concluded by J. HACKL and M. JURSA (2015, 168), “the choice of an Iranian name for a royal functionary
of Egyptian origin is a very clear sign of an aspiration towards a more specific form of integration, viz. into
the ranks of the Iranian administrative élite of the Achaemenid empire”. Here it should be noted that
Bagazuštu was not the only Egyptian who adopted an Iranian name in Achaemenid Babylonia.3) The case
of Bagazuštu and his colleagues tells of pragmatism and opportunism besides integration and assimilation.
Trying to answer the second question, Bagazuštu’s presence in Persia-dominated Babylonia may
be regarded as an indication that he was an Egyptian official (hence his position as courtier in Achaemenid
Babylonia) who had been deported to Babylonia following the Persian conquest of Egypt in 525 BCE.
HACKL and JURSA (2015, 171) here conclude that the presence of Egyptian officials in the Persian
administration can be seen in the light of “traces of a system of administration that for its middle ranks
relied heavily on the service of professional bureaucrats who were perhaps palace-trained (this is probably
the case for the ustarbarus who correspond to the Babylonian ša rēšis) and/or who had a cultural or
intellectual background that made them seem suitable for administrative tasks, but who did not necessarily

– 71 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

originate in the local population”. Such a phenomenon was not new, since parallels to the situation in the
Neo-Assyrian empire regarding Egyptian/Libyan/Kushite specialists can be made.4)
In any case, the document makes it clear that not all Egyptians were pharaonic loyalists and that
the ethnic composition of the Achaemenid empire was complex (perhaps more so than in the Neo-Assyrian
empire), signalling aims of inclusion and multiculturalism.5) The famous Egyptian official Udjahorresne
was not alone in “collaborating” with Persia.6)
Notes
1. The tablet belongs to the archive of Zababa-šar-uṣur, overseer of the Babylonian domains of the Persian
crown prince (RA 90 / JOANNÈS and LEMAIRE 1996, 41).
2. Regarding ustarbara, see EILERS 1966, 81-106; HINZ 1975, 258; and DANDAMAYEV 1992, 52.
3. Note, e.g., the man with an Iranian name (Bagadātu) and an Egyptian name (Paṭ-Ēsi), who rents out land
to the Murašȗ firm in a text (IMT 43) from Nippur and the 40th year of the reign of Artaxerxes I (= 425 BCE).
4. Note, e.g., the list of palace personnel which includes Egyptian scribes and scholars (SAA 7 1), and the
list of deported, Egyptian skilled labour in a royal inscription of Esarhaddon (RINAP 4 9).
5. For the dichotomy Egyptians vs. foreigners in the ideological sphere, see e.g. LOPRIENO 1988. For the
integrative approach of Achaemenid state ideology, see e.g. EHRENBERG 2008.
6. For articles on Udjahorresne and his world, see e.g. WASMUTH and CREASMAN 2020.

References
DANDAMAYEV, M.A., 1992, Iranians in Achaemenid Babylonia, Costa Mesa and New York.
EHRENBERG, E., 2008, “Dieu et mon droit: Kingship in Late Babylonian and Early Persian Times”, in N. BRISCH (ed.),
Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond, Chicago, p. 103-131.
EILERS, W., 1966, Iranische Beamtennamen in der keilschriftlichen Überlieferungen, Nendeln.
HACKL, J. and JURSA, M., 2015, “Egyptians in Babylonia in the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid Periods”, in J. STÖKL
and C. WAERZEGGERS (eds.), Exile and Return, Berlin, p. 157-180.
HINZ, W., 1975, Altiranisches Sprachgut der Nebenüberlieferungen, Wiesbaden.
IMT = DONBAZ, V. and STOLPER, M.W., 1997, Istanbul Murašû Texts, Istanbul.
LOPRIENO, A., 1988, Topos und Mimesis. Zum Ausländer in der ägyptischen Literatur, Wiesbaden.
RA 90 = JOANNÈS, F. and LEMAIRE, A., 1996, “Contrats babyloniens d’époque achéménide du bȋt-abȋ râm avec une
épigraphe araméenne”, RA 90, p. 41-60.
RINAP 4 = LEICHTY, E., 2011, The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680-669 BC), Winona Lake.
SAA 7 = FALES, F.M. and POSTGATE, J.N., 1992, Imperial Administrative Records, Part I: Palace and Temple
Administration, Helsinki.
TAVERNIER, J., 2007, Iranica in the Achaemenid Period (ca. 550-330 B.C.): Lexicon of Old Iranian Proper Names and
Loanwords, Attested in Non-Iranian Texts, Leuven, Paris, and Dudley.
WASMUTH, M. and CREASMAN, P.P. (eds.), 2020, Udjahorresnet and His World (= Journal of Ancient Egyptian
Interconnections 26), Tucson.
Mattias KARLSSON <mattias.karlsson@lingfil.uu.se>
Uppsala University (SWEDEN)

31) Aššur in Esther — The ruling Persian monarch in the Book of Esther is called Ahasuerus (Hebrew
’hšwrwš), who is normally identified with Xerxes or less frequently with Artaxerxes. The similarity of the
names of the other principal protagonists in this book, Esther, Mordecai, and Haman, to those of the
Mesopotamian gods Ištar and Marduk and the Elamite god Humban was noted by Peter Jensen in 1892.1)
He also suggested that possible correlates for Zeresh, the wife of Haman, and Vashti, the wife of Ahasuerus,
were the Elamite goddesses Kiri(ri)ša and Mašti. Although none of these associations can be established
with certainty and most commentators have either denied or ignored them, it is interesting to note that the
genders of the deities match the genders of the individuals in the Book of Esther and that the Elamite deities
are associated with the evil characters and the Mesopotamian deities with the virtuous actors. Since five of
the six main characters in the Book of Esther have been linked with ancient Near Eastern deities, it is
tempting to wonder whether the sixth, Ahasuerus himself, might also be connected with a Near Eastern
god. Since the name of the Persian king in the Greek Alpha Text, which may have derived from a different,
possibly earlier, Hebrew version of the story, is Ασουηρος, the obvious candidate is Aššur, who occupied
a similar preeminent position in the Assyrian pantheon to that of Ahasuerus in the Persian Empire.2) It is

– 72 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

as easy to relate Ahasuerus (Hebrew ’hšwrwš) to Aššur as to Xerxes (Old Persian xšayaṛšā, Akkadian
ḫišiʾarša, Aramaic ḥšyʾrš) and much easier than relating it to Artaxerxes (Old Persian Artaxšaçā, Akkadian
artakšassu, Aramaic ʾrtḥšsš).
The inclusion of Aššur would suggest an Assyrian rather than a Babylonian inspiration for the
names and, in an Assyrian context, the omission of Aššur, the most important of the gods of Assyria, would
be surprising. This would support the suggestion by Stephanie Dalley (2007) that the original story behind
the Book of Esther involved a struggle between Assyrian and Elamite gods, which echoed the actual wars
between the Assyrians and the Elamites in the seventh century BC. In the reworking of the story, the name
of the god, along with the introduction of numerous Persian names, loanwords, and customs, may have
been modified to be similar to that of the Achaemenid king Xerxes but nevertheless significantly preserved
the otherwise inexplicable /w/.
The possibility that gods known in Assyria may lie behind some of the names of the principal
actors does not lessen the significance of the numerous Jewish, Persian, and Hellenistic features that are
evident in the Book of Esther.
Notes
1. I am grateful to Adam Silverstein for information and advice.
2. The first part of the title of an article by Stephen Holloway (2009) about illustrations of the Book of Esther
states that Aššur was the King of Persia, but he did not suggest a connection between the name of the Assyrian god
and the name of the Persian king.

References
DALLEY, S.M. 2007. Esther's Revenge at Susa. From Sennacherib to Ahasuerus, Oxford.
HOLLOWAY, S.W. 2009. Assur is King of Persia: illustrations of the Book of Esther in some nineteenth-century sources,
Journal of Religion & Society 11: 1-15.
JENSEN, P.C.A. 1892. Elamitische Eigennamen. Ein Beitrag zur Erklärung der elamitischen Inschriften, WZKM 6: 47-70.
Michael ROAF <Michael.Roaf@lrz.uni-muenchen.de>
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München (GERMANY)

32) Some Egyptians(?) in Hellenistic Babylonia — With regard to the Hellenistic period (330-30 BCE),
Egypt is naturally tied to the Ptolemies and not to the Seleucids. However, some documents from Babylonia
of Seleucid (and Parthian) times include personal names that seemingly point to Egyptian individuals.
These names are all composed of a Semitic word followed by the name of the Egyptian goddess Isis
(ZADOK 1977, 27). Question is, are they examples of the influence of Egyptian religion outside Egypt or
do they tell of the partial integration of Egyptians in western Asia? How valid is the claim by R. ZADOK
(1992, 142) that “Semitic names containing the theophorous element Esi are linguistically hybrid, but their
bearers cannot be regarded as Egyptians. Such names, which are not recorded in Babylonia before the last
third of the 5th century B.C. merely indicate the popularity of the Isis cult in Western Asia during the late
Achaemenian and Hellenistic periods”?
A man named Abdi-Ēsi is mentioned in an unprovenanced and fragmentary contract (VS 6 227)
from the reign of the Seleucid king Antiochus III (222-187 BCE). The reference to Egypt which the name
conveys stands in isolation, meaning primarily that there are no fully Egyptian names or ethnonyms
expressed in (the preserved parts of) the document.1) The same can be said regarding a document (VS 15
3) from Uruk and Seleucid times (the 14th regnal year of a king with the name Seleucus),2) in which the
man Ḫanin-Ēsi features. The document deals with the sale of three slaves (male and female), and Ḫanin-
Ēsi appears as a patronym. Finally, a man named Raḫīmi-Ēsi is mentioned in four documents (ZA 3, 131-
134 [nos. 4-7]) from Babylon dated to 94-93 BCE and the reign of the Parthian king Mithridates II (124-
91 BCE). Again, the references to Isis are the only elements of the texts that bring to mind Egypt. ZA 3,
131-134 (nos. 4-7) seem to deal with economic issues of a Babylonian temple (Raḫīmi-Ēsi appears as some
kind of treasurer), and the remaining names expressed in these are all native, Babylonian.3)
Returning to the question whether these names are examples of the influence of Egyptian religion
outside Egypt or tell of the partial integration of Egyptians in western Asia, and ZADOK’s claim that the
former is the case, the absence of Egyptian socio-onomastic contexts in the relevant documents makes it

– 73 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

likely that the names are reflections of the diffusion of the Isis cult outside Egypt.4) The goddess Isis had
sanctuaries around the Mediterranean in the Hellenistic and Roman periods (QUIRKE 1992, 175-176),5)
including in the eastern, Seleucid empire (MA 2014). Having said that, it is certainly too rash to argue, as
ZADOK seems to do,6) that all attestations of “Egyptian” hybrid names in Mesopotamian documents speak
of religion and not of ethnicity, not least since there are several examples of such hybrid names as early as
in Neo-Assyrian times and texts,7) that is, long before the heyday of the diffused Isis cult between the third
century BCE and the third century AD (QUIRKE 1992, 177).
Notes
1. Archival context and the subject matter of the text are other aspects to take notice of when evaluating
whether an “Egyptian context” is present or not.
2. Only two kings can come into question, namely Seleucus I (312-281 BCE) and II (246-225 BCE).
3. The names in question are Marduk-šumu-iddina, Nabȗ-nāṣir, and Bēl-zēru-ibni. The deities Zababa(?),
Belit, and Shamash, as well as the temples Esabad(?) and Esagila, are mentioned.
4. Of course, the individuals in question may be viewed as having had a construed Egyptian ethnicity, in their
adopting parts of Egyptian culture (as interpreted by the western Asian Isis community).
5. By 200 BCE, Egyptian sanctuaries existed as such sites as Salamis, Eretria, Priene, and Delos, and the
cults of Egyptian deities spread to Sicily, southern Italy, and Iberia in the following two centuries, with a temple
dedicated to Isis built at Pompeii in the mid-second century BCE (QUIRKE 1992, 175).
6. At least if picking up on the first part of the quote, which seems to convey the idea that the hybrid names
in question cannot be regarded as Egyptian, regardless of time period.
7. Note, for example, Abī-Ḫūru (Semitic+Egyptian DN Horus) in a text (ND 2306) from Kalhu and 687
BCE, and Šumma-Ēši (Akkadian+Egyptian DN Isis) in a text (StAT 2 37) from Assur and 666 BCE. For a study on
African individuals and groups in Neo-Assyrian texts, see KARLSSON 2022, notably pp. 14 and 90.

References
KARLSSON, M., 2022, From the Nile to the Tigris: African Individuals and Groups in Texts from the Neo-Assyrian
Empire, SAAS 31, Helsinki and Philadelphia.
MA, J., 2014, “Les cultes isiaques en l’espace seleucide”, in L. BRICAULT and M.J. VERSLUYS (eds.), Power, Politics,
and the Cults of Isis, Leiden, p. 116-134.
ND = prefix of excavation numbers from the British excavations at Nimrud.
QUIRKE, S., 1992, Ancient Egyptian Religion, London.
StAT 2 = DONBAZ, V. and PARPOLA, S., 2001, Neo-Assyrian Legal Texts in Istanbul, Saarbrücken.
VS 6 = UNGNAD, A., 1908, Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlichen Museen zu Berlin VI: Neubabylonische
Kontrakte, Leipzig.
VS 15 = SCHROEDER, O., 1916, Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlichen Museen zu Berlin XV: Kontrakte
der Seleukidenzeit aus Warka, Leipzig.
ZA 3 = STRASSMAIER, J.N., 1888, “Arsaciden-Inschriften”, ZA 3: 129-158.
ZADOK, R., 1977, On West Semites in Babylonia during the Chaldean and Achaemenid Periods, Jerusalem.
ZADOK, R., 1992, “Egyptians in Babylonia and Elam during the 1st Millennium B.C.”, Lingua Aegyptia 2: 139-146.
Mattias KARLSSON <mattias.karlsson@lingfil.uu.se>

VIE DE L'ASSYRIOLOGIE

33) Parution d'un Que Sais-je ? sur l'assyriologie — Dans cette collection de livres synthétiques sur des
sujets très variés (en 128 pages), vient de paraître : D. Charpin, L'assyriologie, collection « Que sais-je ? »
n°4239, Paris, 2023 (http://www.quesaisje.com/content/LAssyriologie). Il s'agit d'une présentation de
l'histoire des recherches et de l'état actuel de cette spécialité, destinée avant tout aux étudiants et au public
intéressé, parsemée de réflexions suscitées par un demi-siècle de travail ; à ce titre, il peut également retenir
l'attention des assyriologues professionnels.

34) Fourth meeting of the Giovani Ricercatori Italiani di Storia e Filologia del Vicino Oriente Antico
(GRISeF-VOA) – Ricerche in corso — On December 2nd, 2022, took place online the 4th meeting of the
Giovani Ricercatori Italiani di Storia e Filologia del Vicino Oriente Antico (GRISeF-VOA). The event

– 74 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

was co-organized by the present authors Beatrice Baragli (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem) and
Armando Bramanti (at that time CCHS – CSIC, Madrid) and aimed at offering a platform for early career
Italian scholars in Ancient Near Eastern History and Philology to present their ongoing research and
endeavors.
The initiative was established in 2017 from the joined effort of Silvia Salin and Francesca Minen,
co-founders of the GRISeF-VOA (at that time GRIA, Giovani Ricercatori Italiani di Assiriologia) and
rapidly caught the interest of a great number of early career—i.e. pre-tenure track—scholars, mostly PhD
candidates and postdoctoral researchers, but occasionally also advanced MA students. A first meeting took
place in March 2018 at Università di Verona (see Ponchia, S., Salin, S., Minen, F. 2018. First meeting of
Giovani Ricercatori Italiani di Assiriologia (GRIA), NABU 2018/36), followed by a second meeting in
February 2019 at Sapienza – Università di Roma (see the report of L. Bertolini, one of the organizers, on
the IAA magazine Mar Shiprim of 1/10/2019 at https://tinyurl.com/mr3ud9ur). A third meeting was
scheduled for March 2020 at Università di Verona but was unfortunately cancelled a few days before the
date due to the pandemic of COVID-19. More information on the history of the initiative and the programs
of past conferences can be found at https://griassiriologia.wordpress.com.
After a sensible almost three-year hiatus the present authors revived the initiative and opted for an
online format, which allowed for a remarkably well-attended meeting, in terms of both speakers and
audience. The conference consisted of 18 presentations, two keynote lectures, and a workshop including
talks on postdoc opportunities in Italy, Germany, Spain, Czech Republic, and Israel aimed at promoting
international exchange and mobility among young scholars. A grand total of 21 speakers affiliated to twelve
research centers in seven different countries participated in this fourth meeting. The program encompassed
five sessions on Sumer, Babylon and Assyria, Literature and Society, Anatolia, Language and Grammar;
thus, covering the entire chronological and geographical range of Cuneiform Studies. The aforementioned
workshop and a rich round table concluded the event. Below the reader will find a list of the participants
and their presentations – more information, including the full program of the conference, is available at
https://griassiriologia.wordpress.com/286-2.
– Keynote lectures – Gabriella Spada (Sapienza – Università di Roma): L’importanza del tempio nell’economia
dell’antica Mesopotamia: il caso dei temple loans di periodo paleo-babilonese; Elena Devecchi (Università di Torino):
Riflessioni sull’uso dei sigilli nella Babilonia di epoca cassita: questioni di proprietà, identità e riconoscibilità.
– Sumer – Angela Greco (Sapienza – Università di Roma): Mercanti di pesce nel terzo millennio a.C.; Edoardo Zanetti:
Dalle parole ai fatti: descrivere e vivere il paesaggio idraulico nel terzo millennio a.C. in Sumer; Armando Bramanti
(CCHS – CSIC, Madrid): Hidden in plain sight: evidenza di un rituale divinatorio nel terzo millennio?; Andrea Rebecca
Marrocchi Savoi (Sapienza – Università di Roma): Legami d’argilla. Uno sguardo alla società di Ur III attraverso i
ditilla.
– Babylon and Assyria – Silvia Gabrieli: Cilicia, frontiera Assira; Letizia Savino (Johannes Gutenberg-Universität
Mainz): Medicina e medici ‘all’estero’; Lucrezia Menicatti (Universität Wien): Ripetizione e pensiero analogico nella
letteratura divinatoria mesopotamica del primo millennio a.C.; Alessia Pilloni (Freie Universität Berlin): Babilonia e
Uruk: città gemelle delle scienze celesti. Un caso studio sulla trasmissione del sapere astronomico nel periodo Tardo-
babilonese.
– Literature and Society – Ludovica Bertolini (Charles University, Prague): Alcune considerazioni sull’uso della
letteratura tradizionale sumerica nelle scuole scribali di Ugarit; Marinella Ceravolo (Sapienza – Università di Roma):
Semantica, materialità e musealizzazione della pace del Vicino Oriente antico.
– Anatolia – Marta Pallavidini (Freie Universität Berlin): Definire una crisi: spunti di riflessione e approccio teorico
al concetto di crisi nel mondo ittita; Mariateresa Albanese (Sapienza – Università di Roma): KUB 27.42: rituale o
invocazione del principe sacerdote per i sovrani?; Sasha Alessandro Volpi: Storia dei rapporti ittito-babilonesi nel
Tardo Bronzo; Marco De Pietri (Università degli Studi di Pavia): Indagini sui proprietari di sigilli ittiti a iscrizione
geroglifica (II millennio a.C.): raccolta di dati onomastici per un indice dei nomi e indagini prosopografiche.
– Language and Grammar – Beatrice Baragli (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem): Verbi composti sumerici nel I
millennio; Michela Piccin (North-West University, South Africa): Aspetti linguistici della persuasività in accadico:
selezione di testi; Virna Fagiolo (Sapienza – Università di Roma / Università Roma Tre); Nomina actionis e nomina
rei actae in ittito: il caso della derivazione nominale eteroclita; Fabio Bastici (Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz):
Filologia e grammatica hurrita: ricerche in corso e prospettive.

– 75 –
 N.A.B.U. 2023 n° 1 (mars)

– Workshop: postdoc opportunities – Gabriella Spada (Sapienza – Università di Roma): Italy; Marta Pallavidini
(Freie Universität Berlin): Germany; Armando Bramanti (CCHS – CSIC, Madrid): Spain; Sergio Alivernini (Czech
Academy of Sciences, Prague): Czech Republic; Beatrice Baragli (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem): Israel.
Such meetings not only provide an opportunity to present ongoing scholarship but also promote the
development of an active network of young, untenured Italian researchers working both in national and in
international institutions, thus fostering the long tradition of Italian Ancient Near Eastern Studies. The
present authors express their gratitude to each and every participant and attendee of the conference and
pass the witness to the next generation of Italian young scholars, wishing a long and successful continuation
of the GRISeF-VOA.
Beatrice BARAGLI <beatrice.baragli@gmail.com>
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (ISRAEL)

Armando BRAMANTI <armando.bramanti@gmail.com>

Universidad Complutense de Madrid (SPAIN)

NOUVELLES PARA-ASSYRIOLOGIQUES

Cette nouvelle rubrique permet la publication de notes très brèves (max. quelques lignes) concernant la parution
d'ouvrages ou œuvres visuelles culturelles ayant un lien avec l'Assyriologie. La rédaction doit le terme « para-
assyriologie » à une collègue parisienne. On attendra avec impatience son entrée dans les dictionnaires francophones.

35) Parution d'un roman sur Sennachérib — Josette Elayi vient de publier un roman intitulé Le roi qui
noya Babylone aux Éditions Douro (ISBN 9782384062256).

Abonnement pour un an/Subscription for one year: FRANCE 35,00 €

NOUVEAU TARIF ! / NEW FEES! AUTRES PAYS/OTHER COUNTRIES 55,00 €
– Par carte de crédit (et Paypal) sur la boutique en ligne de la SEPOA
By credit card (and Paypal) through our online store
http://sepoa.fr/?product_cat=revue-nabu
– Par virement postal à l’ordre de/To Giro Account: Société pour l’Étude du Proche-Orient Ancien,
39, avenue d’Alembert, 92160 ANTONY. IBAN: FR 23 2004 1000 0114 69184V02 032 BIC: PSSTFRPPPAR
– Par chèque postal ou bancaire en Euros COMPENSABLE EN FRANCE à l’ordre de/By Bank check in Euros
PAYABLE IN FRANCE and made out to: Société pour l’Étude du Proche-Orient Ancien.
Les manuscrits (WORD & PDF) pour publication sont à envoyer à l’adresse suivante :
Manuscripts (WORD & PDF) to be published should be sent to the following address:
nabu@sepoa.fr
Pour tout ce qui concerne les affaires administratives, les abonnements et les réclamations,
adresser un courrier à l’adresse électronique suivante : contact@sepoa.fr

Directeur honoraire : Jean-Marie DURAND

Rédactrice en chef : Nele ZIEGLER
Secrétariat d’édition : Antoine JACQUET
Secrétariat : Vérène CHALENDAR

N.A.B.U. est publié par la Société pour l’Étude du Proche-Orient Ancien, Association (Loi de 1901) sans but lucratif
ISSN n° 0989-5671. Dépôt légal : Paris, 06-2023. Reproduction par photocopie
Directeur de la publication : D. Charpin

– 76 –